Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 25673 comments on the Denver Post story from Jun 6, 2013, titled Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake. In it, Denver Post reports that:

Engaged gay couple Dave Mullins, second from left, and Charlie Craig, left, were joined by a small group of supporters in Lakewood on Aug. 4, 2012 to protest and boycott the Masterpiece Cakeshop at 3355 S. Wadsworth Blvd. The couple went to the cake shop, and the owner turned the couple away saying he would not make them a rainbow-themed wedding ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Denver Post.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2797 Jul 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I know mathematics much better than you do.
Yet you have difficulty understanding which is greater, three or two?
Frankie, if I treat you like a child, or more appropriately an idiot, it is because you seemingly lack the mental capacity to understand basic concepts.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You will be thrown out of court if you tell a judge that he can't count good so therefore we should deny marriage equality.
No, Frankie, if the core question is equality under the law, you would be laughed out of court for insisting that polygamy was relevant to a Question of same sex marriage.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You sill haven't explained what "greater" protection is Bunky. Because you cannot.
Spot check, which is more 5 or two?
It's a matter of basic counting, Frankie. A kindergarten student could best you in a court of law.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2798 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
Spot check, which is more 5 or two?
It's a matter of basic counting, Frankie. A kindergarten student could best you in a court of law.
List these "greater protections" you claim exist. Your 'can you count' response is ridiculous. Admit it, you have nothing else. There are no "greater protections." I'd tell you to grow a brain but I try to refrain from suggesting the impossible.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2799 Jul 26, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
List these "greater protections" you claim exist. Your 'can you count' response is ridiculous. Admit it, you have nothing else. There are no "greater protections." I'd tell you to grow a brain but I try to refrain from suggesting the impossible.
Wondering, can you count?
Are three people greater than, less than, or equal to two people?
My, but you are an idiot.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2800 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, can you count?
Are three people greater than, less than, or equal to two people?
My, but you are an idiot.
Why do you insist on making your stupidity public knowledge? I know, you're anonymous.
List the 'greater protections' or make up another story, this one doesn't work.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2801 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you have difficulty understanding which is greater, three or two?
Frankie, if I treat you like a child, or more appropriately an idiot, it is because you seemingly lack the mental capacity to understand basic concepts.
<quoted text>
No, Frankie, if the core question is equality under the law, you would be laughed out of court for insisting that polygamy was relevant to a Question of same sex marriage.
<quoted text>
Spot check, which is more 5 or two?
It's a matter of basic counting, Frankie. A kindergarten student could best you in a court of law.
Still waiting for you to describe "a new expanded greater protection of the law". What is it? Help us out here, it's the center of your argument. Simple question WTF is "Greater" protection?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2802 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
...Spot check, which is more 5 or two?
It's a matter of basic counting, Frankie. A kindergarten student could best you in a court of law.
5.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2803 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, can you count?
Are three people greater than, less than, or equal to two people?
My, but you are an idiot.
Try asking a judge if he can count. You are so confident in that argument, go with it. Own it.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2804 Jul 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
5.
Very good Frankie, you are on the cusp of understanding why your regular arguments of polygamy are irrelevant to the topic at hand. You see, Frankie, three or more, being greater than two, polygamists seek additional protection under the law for a greater number of persons to participate in a single marriage. Ergo why they are not, in fact, seeking equality under the law.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it Frankie? Why did you pretend to be an idiot incapable of understanding such basic concepts as counting and equality?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2805 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Frankie, three or more, being greater than two, polygamists seek additional protection under the law for a greater number of persons to participate in a single marriage.
2. Ergo why they are not, in fact, seeking equality under the law.
Now that wasn't so hard, was it Frankie?
3. Why did you pretend to be an idiot incapable of understanding such basic concepts as counting and equality?
1. There are more than 3 people in my family, so what?
2. Hard? No. Just as stupid as it was the last time you said it? Yes.
3. When it comes to being an idiot, you aren't pretending.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2806 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good Frankie,
You ignored his question. Here it is:
"Simple question WTF is "Greater" protection?"

You keep coming up empty on that one. Funny part is you use it repeatedly. Hilarious!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2807 Jul 26, 2014
When I was a kid we had neighbors with 12 kids. That's 14 people.
Talk about 'greater protection.' BWAHAHAHA!

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2808 Jul 26, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. There are more than 3 people in my family, so what?
You truly are an idiot, aren't you? A family is not a protection of the law. Marriage is a protection of the law. You are not legally married to more that one person if you reside anywhere in the United States of America. When last I checked, bigamy is even illegal in Tyngsboro.
Wondering wrote:
2. Hard? No. Just as stupid as it was the last time you said it? Yes.
Wondering, that doesn't change the fact that polygamists, by definition, seek greater protection of the law for three or more people to enter into one legal marriage. Were you smarter than a rock, you wouldn't keep arguing the utterly irrelevant topic of polygamy.
Tell me, Wondering, how long did it take for the recognition of same sex marriages in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to lead to polygamy?
Wondering wrote:
3. When it comes to being an idiot, you aren't pretending.
I'm not the one making all the irrelevant and foolish arguments.
Wondering wrote:
You ignored his question. Here it is:
"Simple question WTF is "Greater" protection?"
You keep coming up empty on that one. Funny part is you use it repeatedly. Hilarious!
Wondering, if three or more people are to be included in one marriage, the law needs to be changed in order to reflect the greater protection of the greater number of people. This isn't rocket science, and you look like a complete imbecile when you regularly return to this irrelevant argument that has already been repeatedly debunked. This is particularly true when you pretend not to understand that adding multiple persons into a single marriage by definition seeks extraordinary (greater than exists in any state in the union) protection of the law.

Same sex couples seek equal protection of the law for two persons to marry, and you seem to lack the intelligence to offer any rational reason why they should be denied equal protection for two same sex individuals to legally marry.

Clearly you lack the ability to articulate a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, so you revert to the idiotic notion that denying polyamorous couples to marry is a denial of equality, when it clearly seeks heightened legal protection for a greater number of people.

This is why I think you are an idiot. Any moderately intelligent person would be able to grasp such a simple concept.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2809 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You truly are an idiot, aren't you? A family is not a protection of the law. Marriage is a protection of the law. You are not legally married to more that one person if you reside anywhere in the United States of America. When last I checked, bigamy is even illegal in Tyngsboro.
<quoted text>
Wondering, that doesn't change the fact that polygamists, by definition, seek greater protection of the law for three or more people to enter into one legal marriage. Were you smarter than a rock, you wouldn't keep arguing the utterly irrelevant topic of polygamy.
Tell me, Wondering, how long did it take for the recognition of same sex marriages in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to lead to polygamy?
<quoted text>
I'm not the one making all the irrelevant and foolish arguments.
<quoted text>
Wondering, if three or more people are to be included in one marriage, the law needs to be changed in order to reflect the greater protection of the greater number of people. This isn't rocket science, and you look like a complete imbecile when you regularly return to this irrelevant argument that has already been repeatedly debunked. This is particularly true when you pretend not to understand that adding multiple persons into a single marriage by definition seeks extraordinary (greater than exists in any state in the union) protection of the law.
Same sex couples seek equal protection of the law for two persons to marry, and you seem to lack the intelligence to offer any rational reason why they should be denied equal protection for two same sex individuals to legally marry.
Clearly you lack the ability to articulate a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, so you revert to the idiotic notion that denying polyamorous couples to marry is a denial of equality, when it clearly seeks heightened legal protection for a greater number of people.
This is why I think you are an idiot. Any moderately intelligent person would be able to grasp such a simple concept.
Listen dodo head. Every person gets equal protection of the law, no more, no less. There is no such thing as "greater" protection. If there is, explain it moron.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2810 Jul 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Listen dodo head. Every person gets equal protection of the law, no more, no less. There is no such thing as "greater" protection. If there is, explain it moron.
Sorry, kiddo, allowing three people to enter into one marriage is seeking a greater degree of protection than any state currently allows. In fact, to marry more than one person is currently criminal in every state in the union.

Do try to grow a brain and offer on on topic argument, Frankie. That you cannot understand why polygamy is irrelevant to the current topic, or why polygamy doesn't really seek equality is just further indication of your own mental shortcomings.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2811 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, allowing three people to enter into one marriage is seeking a greater degree of protection than any state currently allows. In fact, to marry more than one person is currently criminal in every state in the union.
Do try to grow a brain and offer on on topic argument, Frankie. That you cannot understand why polygamy is irrelevant to the current topic, or why polygamy doesn't really seek equality is just further indication of your own mental shortcomings.
Can't explain it eh? That's because it doesn't exist. There's equal protection of the law and there's no equal protection of the law. There is no "greater degree of protection" of the law.

I am well aware that "in fact to marry more than one person is currently criminal in every state in the union." Bozo. WTF do you think I have been arguing with your dumbass about?

It shouldn't be criminal to marry the other consenting adult(s) of your choice. Every consenting adult human being must be free from religious, government, lides, or any other interference in choosing his family life whether homosexual, heterosexual, monogamous or polygamous.

Don't like poly fruitloops? Don't do it. Back off from good people who are just pursuing happiness just like you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2812 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You truly are an idiot, aren't you? A family is not a protection of the law. Marriage is a protection of the law. You are not legally married to more that one person if you reside anywhere in the United States of America. When last I checked, bigamy is even illegal in Tyngsboro.
<quoted text>
Wondering, that doesn't change the fact that polygamists, by definition, seek greater protection of the law for three or more people to enter into one legal marriage. Were you smarter than a rock, you wouldn't keep arguing the utterly irrelevant topic of polygamy.
Tell me, Wondering, how long did it take for the recognition of same sex marriages in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to lead to polygamy?
<quoted text>
I'm not the one making all the irrelevant and foolish arguments.
<quoted text>
Wondering, if three or more people are to be included in one marriage, the law needs to be changed in order to reflect the greater protection of the greater number of people. This isn't rocket science, and you look like a complete imbecile when you regularly return to this irrelevant argument that has already been repeatedly debunked. This is particularly true when you pretend not to understand that adding multiple persons into a single marriage by definition seeks extraordinary (greater than exists in any state in the union) protection of the law.
Same sex couples seek equal protection of the law for two persons to marry, and you seem to lack the intelligence to offer any rational reason why they should be denied equal protection for two same sex individuals to legally marry.
Clearly you lack the ability to articulate a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, so you revert to the idiotic notion that denying polyamorous couples to marry is a denial of equality, when it clearly seeks heightened legal protection for a greater number of people.
This is why I think you are an idiot. Any moderately intelligent person would be able to grasp such a simple concept.
Define these protections. I don't think you can.
JD, do you really think a family isn't a protection of the law?
Families do have "heightened legal protection for a greater number of people."
This is why I think you are an idiot. Any moderately intelligent person would be able to grasp such a simple concept.

Why would I offer you a reason for denying gay marriage? You must have forgotten, I don't care if gays marry. I don't even care if they marry more than one person.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2813 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, allowing three people to enter into one marriage is seeking a greater degree of protection than any state currently allows. In fact, to marry more than one person is currently criminal in every state in the union.
Fine, so what is this greater degree of protection?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2814 Jul 26, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Define these protections. I don't think you can.
JD, do you really think a family isn't a protection of the law?
Families do have "heightened legal protection for a greater number of people."
This is why I think you are an idiot. Any moderately intelligent person would be able to grasp such a simple concept.
Why would I offer you a reason for denying gay marriage? You must have forgotten, I don't care if gays marry. I don't even care if they marry more than one person.
Lets face it. Lides is a dope.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2815 Jul 26, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine, so what is this greater degree of protection?
lides cannot describe "greater degree of protection" because he made it up and it doesn't exist. But he doesn't let that stop him for using it as an argument against other peoples marriages. I suppose he thinks we're even stupider than he is.

"Greater degree of protection" now. Notice how he changes it all the time?
Yukon

Anonymous Proxy

#2816 Jul 27, 2014
I am all for polygamy I wants seven wife's one for each day of the week and a orgy every Sunday after church.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 9 hr tbird19482 19,304
Why I Am Voting for Trump Sat Jamar 84
Hillary Clinton OUR next President Sat ohh 553
News Police: Martino allegedly punched wife in face ... (Dec '13) Sat dGo mdDaen lyHo i... 5
News Chupacabra spotted near Tecumseh? (Jul '10) Fri Anne M 59
Test (Apr '13) Aug 27 THE GREEK GOD 9
Trump is Right, No Anchor Babies Aug 27 Vote Trump 13
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages