Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 57591 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.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#319 Dec 15, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Under the law, his signs technically read, "come in, we're open (regardless of your: disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry)" and "we do wedding cakes (regardless of your: disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry) ", He's the one who didn't read them.
Really? Do you really want to do the “technically” thing? Okay.

In the State of Colorado “technically” a marriage is defined as between one-man and one-woman, and gays are “technically” allowed a civil union. Based on these facts “technically” he is not obligated to provide a wedding cake for something that wedding cakes aren't designed for,“technically”.

What this case seriously boils down to is the 1st Amendment right... It’s not okay for our government to prosecute a business owner for their religious beliefs.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#320 Dec 15, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“You're a homophobic bigot who wishes to "pretend" that xstain fundies have not tried to stop the building of mosques in many communities.” You seem to be a bigot towards me. You keep repeating yourself over and over.
Cite your source...
“You have no understanding of the Establishment Clause, and you're a serial liar.” Then why do you explain it for us?
“As some "of your best friends are [self hating] homosexuals," some of my best friends are Christians. Not theocratic, mullah trash, however.” I hope they pray for you as much as I do.
“Couldn't be simpler.” Your mind?
I'm not surprised to learn of your intellectual impairment.

Of course I hate theocrats, meaning you. That has nothing to do with your lie about my hating Christians. Stop twisting words and being a pretend victim. Git ur hom skool teechur to hewlp u wit "set" and "subset," you dumb talibangelical.

If I were overtly bigoted against theocratic trash, on the other hand, I would try to pass laws preventing such filth from marrying or serving openly or being protected from arbitrary firing. I have not done so. So we _know_ who the bigots are - the ones who have sought those pogroms against glbt people.

You live a brainwashed universe where the earth is thousands rather than billions of years old and where fundie, xstain bigots have not tried to block the construction of mosques or tried to block anti sex abuse curricula or Halloween celebrations or yoga classes in public schools.

Of course everyone knows about these realities...except for reality denying, "religious" mullahs such as yourself. Lying, clueless trash.

“If you can't beat um join um”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#321 Dec 15, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey stupid bigot, we're not talking about Amish people.
We are discussing businesses: Amish businesses must pay unemployment and SS taxes even though they think it's against their religion to do so.
There are a tiny number of cases in which Amish individuals or all Amish workplaces might be able to opt out of some obligations under secular law.
Such exceptions do not reflect on the case of this bigot baker or on other places of public accommodations which might wish to remove certain kinds of mandated coverages from their employees' health insurance polices.
Secular employees and this secular society cannot be subsumed under the sick, anti rational, theocratic beliefs of some religion or other. The religious freaks themselves, however, are perfectly free to act like religious freaks regarding themselves.
You're the one who brought up the Amish. You incorrectly state that they had to pay Social Security tax when it goes against their religious beliefs. I simply proved your argument wrong. Of course there are a tiny number or cases. There are a tiny number of Amish people.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#322 Dec 15, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
“Sorry, he can blame God for violating their civil rights all he wants, but the law itself allows no special protections for believers while non-believing bigots have to obey it.” What “civil rights” did he violate?
He violated their right to public accommodation and the goods and services that he provides. Haven't you been paying attention?
Respect71 wrote:
“No, it does not. The state's interest in preventing discrimination in places of public accommodation for EVERYONE outweighs the individual's right to practice their beliefs on others. It's why he lost.” What did he practice on others?
Now you're just being obtuse.
Respect71 wrote:
“He sells wedding cakes, any customer who comes in can order a wedding cake, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender and/or sexual orientation, etc. We are not only protecting gays, but we are protecting everybody from random acts of bigotry.” The 1st Amendment protects him in this case.
The Judge who heard this case certainly didn't think so, nor has any Judge who has heard ANY of these cases. The photographer wasn't even able to grab a dissenting opinion from multi-judge panels who have heard her case.
Respect71 wrote:
“His suspect classification of their sexual orientation as God unapproved as the reason he refused a service of his guaranteed to them under the law. He has been found guilty.” With the exception the 1st Amendment protects him. That’s why he isn’t in jail right now.
He wasn't risking jail time to begin with. While public accommodation violations can carry criminal penalties, including jail time, they only apply in cases where a business owner refuses to stop violating the law.
Respect71 wrote:
“Apple #1. Elaine Huguenin refused her services as a wedding photographer to two women wanting photographs of their commitment ceremony on the basis of their relationship being unapproved by God. Apple #2. Jack Phillips refused his services as a wedding cake designer to two men wanting to celebrate their wedding, on the basis of their relationship being unapproved by God. Her apple was made uglier than his by a couple of holier than thou unsolicited emails, but it's still an apple. Given that her apple is the one in the in-box of the SC, if they judge her apple as being the standard, no more apples.” You’re examples are becoming mixed and matched... Did the baker send a email or mean letter?
What you aren't realizing is that her sending those emails is actually legally irrelevant, her only violation of the law was refusing her services, the same thing he did. I knew you wouldn't get it.

“If you can't beat um join um”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#323 Dec 15, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not surprised to learn of your intellectual impairment.
Of course I hate theocrats, meaning you. That has nothing to do with your lie about my hating Christians. Stop twisting words and being a pretend victim. Git ur hom skool teechur to hewlp u wit "set" and "subset," you dumb talibangelical.
If I were overtly bigoted against theocratic trash, on the other hand, I would try to pass laws preventing such filth from marrying or serving openly or being protected from arbitrary firing. I have not done so. So we _know_ who the bigots are - the ones who have sought those pogroms against glbt people.
You live a brainwashed universe where the earth is thousands rather than billions of years old and where fundie, xstain bigots have not tried to block the construction of mosques or tried to block anti sex abuse curricula or Halloween celebrations or yoga classes in public schools.
Of course everyone knows about these realities...except for reality denying, "religious" mullahs such as yourself. Lying, clueless trash.
Again, you are trying to argue against hatred of gays by being hateful of religion. You don't overcome hate with hate. How many people have you persuaded to give up religion by being hateful? How many people have you convinced to be tolerant of gays by being hateful? How is all this hate helping you or your cause? Remember, hating is like drinking poison while hoping the person you hate will die. It's eating you up isn't it?

Why do you think everyone who is religious believes the earth is only thousands of years old? If you go back the the old Greek translation of the Bible you will find that the word "day" (as in the earth was created in 7 days) in Greek does not mean day in English. There is no English word that translates precisely from the word used in the Greek Bible but a closer word would be age (as in period of time). The Bible, when read with this in mind, actually fits perfectly with the theory of evolution.

Did you know that Christianity is not the only religion that prohibits sodomy? I'd look it up for you and post it but I don't have time to deal with your reading comprehension issue again today.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#324 Dec 15, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
What about hiring ONLY people of faith?
Doctrinal exceptions, at least under federal law are only given when both the employer and employee are of the same faith or one covered under that particular exception. A general "people of faith" exception doesn't exist. Remember, discrimination on the basis of religious choice or lack thereof in employment isn't just afoul of state law, federal law covers it too.
Respect71 wrote:
What about their charities?
Charities which provide state funded programs have to provide equal access to them. It's why Catholic Charities freaks out every time another state approves same sex marriage, their adoption services are almost always running on the public dime. What they AREN'T telling you when they do that, is that most laws denying adoption on the basis of sexual orientation were changed ages ago and running a state funded program as they were, they've been adopting to single gay folk all along, many in unmarried relationships. Charities not putting our tax dollars to work are much freer to enforce their beliefs on those they serve.
Respect71 wrote:
You filled the page with a lot of information, so therefore what?
Learn something new?
Respect71 wrote:
“While the couple is not bound to patronize his establishment, they do have the recognized right to. He is free to believe that he is making a cake for a "sacred celebration", but since the ONLY such celebrations that don't qualify as "sacred" in his book are same sex ones, his practicing what he preaches is against the common good. One Shrek or similarly themed wedding cake in his portfolio, the whole notion of what this guy actually holds "sacred" becomes harder to defend.” So how do you suppose he is bound to a gay couple? So therefore what?
Haven't you been paying attention? He is bound to the couple by the law which guaranteed them the right to come into his establishment and order a wedding cake, just like any other customer. It's why he was found guilty.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#325 Dec 15, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not surprised to learn of your intellectual impairment.
Of course I hate theocrats, meaning you. That has nothing to do with your lie about my hating Christians. Stop twisting words and being a pretend victim. Git ur hom skool teechur to hewlp u wit "set" and "subset," you dumb talibangelical.
If I were overtly bigoted against theocratic trash, on the other hand, I would try to pass laws preventing such filth from marrying or serving openly or being protected from arbitrary firing. I have not done so. So we _know_ who the bigots are - the ones who have sought those pogroms against glbt people.
You live a brainwashed universe where the earth is thousands rather than billions of years old and where fundie, xstain bigots have not tried to block the construction of mosques or tried to block anti sex abuse curricula or Halloween celebrations or yoga classes in public schools.
Of course everyone knows about these realities...except for reality denying, "religious" mullahs such as yourself. Lying, clueless trash.
Yet you can’t support one thing you have stated... Simple minds can’t grasp simples truths. Your hate is what eats at your heart (or what’s left of it), and now it causes you to disrespect the founding documents of our Country that was intended to keep is free of tyrannical leaders and individuals like yourself. You bigotry shines and your hate is filth, and I continue to pray deeply for you.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#326 Dec 15, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>He violated their right to public accommodation and the goods and services that he provides. Haven't you been paying attention?
<quoted text>Now you're just being obtuse.
<quoted text>The Judge who heard this case certainly didn't think so, nor has any Judge who has heard ANY of these cases. The photographer wasn't even able to grab a dissenting opinion from multi-judge panels who have heard her case.
<quoted text>He wasn't risking jail time to begin with. While public accommodation violations can carry criminal penalties, including jail time, they only apply in cases where a business owner refuses to stop violating the law. <quoted text>What you aren't realizing is that her sending those emails is actually legally irrelevant, her only violation of the law was refusing her services, the same thing he did. I knew you wouldn't get it.
“He violated their right to public accommodation and the goods and services that he provides. Haven't you been paying attention?” Yet the 1st Amendment allows him protection, otherwise the case would be closed.

“Now you're just being obtuse.” If you can’t explain then you point is mute.

“The Judge who heard this case certainly didn't think so, nor has any Judge who has heard ANY of these cases. The photographer wasn't even able to grab a dissenting opinion from multi-judge panels who have heard her case.” The case is moving on because of the 1st Amendment.

“He wasn't risking jail time to begin with. While public accommodation violations can carry criminal penalties, including jail time, they only apply in cases where a business owner refuses to stop violating the law.” So therefore what?

“What you aren't realizing is that her sending those emails is actually legally irrelevant, her only violation of the law was refusing her services, the same thing he did. I knew you wouldn't get it.” Because it isn’t relevant, at least not that you have shown.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#327 Dec 15, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Doctrinal exceptions, at least under federal law are only given when both the employer and employee are of the same faith or one covered under that particular exception. A general "people of faith" exception doesn't exist. Remember, discrimination on the basis of religious choice or lack thereof in employment isn't just afoul of state law, federal law covers it too. <quoted text>Charities which provide state funded programs have to provide equal access to them. It's why Catholic Charities freaks out every time another state approves same sex marriage, their adoption services are almost always running on the public dime. What they AREN'T telling you when they do that, is that most laws denying adoption on the basis of sexual orientation were changed ages ago and running a state funded program as they were, they've been adopting to single gay folk all along, many in unmarried relationships. Charities not putting our tax dollars to work are much freer to enforce their beliefs on those they serve. <quoted text>Learn something new?
<quoted text>Haven't you been paying attention? He is bound to the couple by the law which guaranteed them the right to come into his establishment and order a wedding cake, just like any other customer. It's why he was found guilty.
“Doctrinal exceptions, at least under federal law are only given when both the employer and employee are of the same faith or one covered under that particular exception. A general "people of faith" exception doesn't exist. Remember, discrimination on the basis of religious choice or lack thereof in employment isn't just afoul of state law, federal law covers it too.” So therefore what?

“Charities which provide state funded programs have to provide equal access to them. It's why Catholic Charities freaks out every time another state approves same sex marriage, their adoption services are almost always running on the public dime. What they AREN'T telling you when they do that, is that most laws denying adoption on the basis of sexual orientation were changed ages ago and running a state funded program as they were, they've been adopting to single gay folk all along, many in unmarried relationships. Charities not putting our tax dollars to work are much freer to enforce their beliefs on those they serve.” So therefore what?

“Learn something new?” No, outside of the fact the you continue on and on with information that in no way shape of form coincides with the subject of which we are speaking.

“Haven't you been paying attention? He is bound to the couple by the law which guaranteed them the right to come into his establishment and order a wedding cake, just like any other customer. It's why he was found guilty.” Yet the 1st Amendment provides him religious protections, that’s why the case isn’t closed.

Interesting you choose to ignore post #319

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#328 Dec 15, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
“He violated their right to public accommodation and the goods and services that he provides. Haven't you been paying attention?” Yet the 1st Amendment allows him protection, otherwise the case would be closed.
Try and keep, this case, already been to trial, already had a verdict rendered. His donated, good Christian legal defense, argued that he was within his 1st amendment rights to refuse them service, the judge disagreed. He has been found guilty of a civil offense and has been ordered to obey the law and to post notice in his establishment to that effect. There has been no word on an appeal.
Respect71 wrote:
“Now you're just being obtuse.” If you can’t explain then you point is mute.
Moot, actually and I have explained how he violated their civil rights how many times with you claiming still not to get it?
Respect71 wrote:
“The Judge who heard this case certainly didn't think so, nor has any Judge who has heard ANY of these cases. The photographer wasn't even able to grab a dissenting opinion from multi-judge panels who have heard her case.” The case is moving on because of the 1st Amendment.
Still no word on an appeal. The verdict is still in place. The organization which has donated his good Christian legal defense has also donated the good Christian legal defense to the New Mexico photographer that has the potential of sinking his case for good.. There may be reluctance to proceed by both the ADF and the baker.
Respect71 wrote:
“He wasn't risking jail time to begin with. While public accommodation violations can carry criminal penalties, including jail time, they only apply in cases where a business owner refuses to stop violating the law.” So therefore what?
Do you have a habit of missing the obvious? You told me that his not being in jail was an indication that he had done nothing wrong. I was letting you know that the only thing his not being in jail indicates is that he couldn't be jailed for what he did do wrong.
Respect71 wrote:
“What you aren't realizing is that her sending those emails is actually legally irrelevant, her only violation of the law was refusing her services, the same thing he did. I knew you wouldn't get it.” Because it isn’t relevant, at least not that you have shown.
Her only violation of the law she has ever been charged with was her initial refusal of her services as a photographer and that action has been the only issue in the case.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#329 Dec 15, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
So therefore what?
What aren't you getting?
Respect71 wrote:
So therefore what?
What aren't you getting?
Respect71 wrote:
No, outside of the fact the you continue on and on with information that in no way shape of form coincides with the subject of which we are speaking.
What part of my merely responding to what YOU have been arguing aren't you getting?
Respect71 wrote:
Yet the 1st Amendment provides him religious protections, that’s why the case isn’t closed.
Unless there is an appeal, it is.
Respect71 wrote:
Interesting you choose to ignore post #319
Hadn't noticed it until you brought it up. The answer is, this couple did not get civil unioned, they got legally married in Massachusetts. They came back to Colorado to celebrate with family and friends who couldn't make their wedding. So you were saying?
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#330 Dec 15, 2013
The Troll Doll wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are trying to argue against
We don't care in a non theocracy which religions do or not get upset by or al or an al sex, something str8 engage in. Go keep those str8 people from marrying or serving openly.

You again assume somehow that you stand in for all religious people. No, theocratic, bigoted mullahs are a sexually sick subset of Christians or of the religious. The theocratic mullahs are the bigots, therefore the theocratic mullahs are the appropriate target.

Similarly, those in other religions who "believe" the earth is thousands of years old - and I don't know what "religious" persons believe that outside of the deranged, xstain, fundie minority - would be by that fact just as anti rational and dangerous as our xstain evilgelicals are. That's why the word "mullah" works so well...it applies to the backwards, fatwa issuing strata in all the religions.

Bigoted fundies better start getting used to being treated as the KKK is treated - reviled in educated society.

The founding documents explicitly block theocrats and theocracy. You're confused about everything. They don't make your fundie xstainist beliefs special in any way as compared to, say, muslim or buddhist beliefs, or lack of belief entirely.

None of this is complicate, but it is hard to tell when you're being disingenuous or when you're just being not terribly bright, brainwashed christianist.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#331 Dec 15, 2013
The Troll Doll wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one who brought up the Amish. You incorrectly state that they had to pay Social Security tax when it goes against their religious beliefs. I simply proved your argument wrong. Of course there are a tiny number or cases. There are a tiny number of Amish people.
Hey cretin troll, no, I brought up the Amish and Scientologists, etc.

Businesses owned by such people who have employees are not exempt as a rule from SS and unemployment taxes or from providing mental coverage in their health insurance, to take just a couple of examples. There's more, of course.

This is because we don't live in a theocracy. We don't make the law based on some buybull bangers upset over sod omy and we don't permit them to be bigots beyond the bounds of their private lives. And businesses are not their private lives. Unless Scaliar gets his way, but that would open up a whole can of worms about, say, muslim business owners wishing to project their dogma onto employees and onto customers.

That latter is what tells us this is about the xstain fundies trying to have the government favor xstainity over everything else, not about "religious" freedom.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#332 Dec 15, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you can’t support one thing you have stated... Simple minds can’t grasp simples truths. Your hate is what eats at your heart (or what’s left of it), and now it causes you to disrespect the founding documents of our Country that was intended to keep is free of tyrannical leaders and individuals like yourself. You bigotry shines and your hate is filth, and I continue to pray deeply for you.
Hey filth, we _know_ who the bigoted trash is - no has said fundie xstains can't marry or serve openly...as fundie bigots have said about glbt people. We know who the bigoted, hateful garbage is.

And dumb bigot, no one needs a citation to know that right wingers and fundie bigots tried to stop the muslim cultural center near WTC, or that they have blocked mosques in other communities, or that they have opposed yoga, child sex abuse curricula, meditation and Halloween in public schools.

But this is the kind of anti rationality and denial and brainwashing you expect from total cretins who so reject reality as to "believe" the earth is under 10000 years old. Such people are mentally ill, and that's all there is to it. Praiz!

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#333 Dec 16, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>What aren't you getting?
<quoted text>What aren't you getting?
<quoted text>What part of my merely responding to what YOU have been arguing aren't you getting?
<quoted text>Unless there is an appeal, it is.
<quoted text>Hadn't noticed it until you brought it up. The answer is, this couple did not get civil unioned, they got legally married in Massachusetts. They came back to Colorado to celebrate with family and friends who couldn't make their wedding. So you were saying?
“Try and keep, this case, already been to trial, already had a verdict rendered. His donated, good Christian legal defense, argued that he was within his 1st amendment rights to refuse them service, the judge disagreed. He has been found guilty of a civil offense and has been ordered to obey the law and to post notice in his establishment to that effect. There has been no word on an appeal.” Regardless… A civil court Judge is not the end. It will go further.

“Moot, actually and I have explained how he violated their civil rights how many times with you claiming still not to get it?” Really? Their right to what exactly? Being gay? Are they facing prosecution for being gay? Paying fines for being gay? Are they having to choose a new vocation to support their family because they are gay? Is the government going to face them NOT to be gay? You need to do better… Just what “RIGHT” is being violated and what are the ACTUAL reprecussions?

“Do you have a habit of missing the obvious? You told me that his not being in jail was an indication that he had done nothing wrong. I was letting you know that the only thing his not being in jail indicates is that he couldn't be jailed for what he did do wrong.” So therefore what?

“What aren't you getting?” You continue to being in information for a point, I assume, are you going to make it soon?
“What aren't you getting?” You continue to being in information for a point, I assume, are you going to make it soon?
“What part of my merely responding to what YOU have been arguing aren't you getting?” You continue to being in information for a point, I assume, are you going to make it soon?
“Unless there is an appeal, it is.” Regardless of appeal the Constitution is there for protect those like this baker.

“Hadn't noticed it until you brought it up. The answer is, this couple did not get civil unioned, they got legally married in Massachusetts. They came back to Colorado to celebrate with family and friends who couldn't make their wedding. So you were saying?” LOL… So “technically” than can only purchase the wedding cake in MA.“Technically” the baker has no obligation to sell them a wedding cake in Colorado where our law is clear.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#334 Dec 16, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey filth, we _know_ who the bigoted trash is - no has said fundie xstains can't marry or serve openly...as fundie bigots have said about glbt people. We know who the bigoted, hateful garbage is.
And dumb bigot, no one needs a citation to know that right wingers and fundie bigots tried to stop the muslim cultural center near WTC, or that they have blocked mosques in other communities, or that they have opposed yoga, child sex abuse curricula, meditation and Halloween in public schools.
But this is the kind of anti rationality and denial and brainwashing you expect from total cretins who so reject reality as to "believe" the earth is under 10000 years old. Such people are mentally ill, and that's all there is to it. Praiz!
Won’t it be great when someone like me comes to your place of business and encounters your sweet and kind charm and a brings a civil suit against you for discrimination? I will pray that doesn’t happen to you.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#335 Dec 16, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Regardless… A civil court Judge is not the end. It will go further.
It CAN go further, it does not have to. What part of, there is no word yet on whether he wants to appeal, aren't you getting?
Respect71 wrote:
Really? Their right to what exactly? Being gay? Are they facing prosecution for being gay? Paying fines for being gay? Are they having to choose a new vocation to support their family because they are gay? Is the government going to face them NOT to be gay? You need to do better… Just what “RIGHT” is being violated and what are the ACTUAL reprecussions?
You aren't being obtuse, it just comes to you naturally, I'm sorry. Colorado law recognizes sexual orientation as a suspect classification which it prohibits discrimination on the basis of, in places of public accommodation and in their provision of goods and services. This means, gay, straight or bisexual, you enjoy an equal right to go to this bakery and an equal right to order wedding cakes. Just because they are gay, straight, or bi is not a reason he can deny them entry or service, whether God agrees with his actions or not. They have as much right to be in his bakery and order a wedding cake while homosexual as does anyone else while heterosexual. This really isn't difficult to understand if you try.
Respect71 wrote:
So therefore what?
Good grief, what part of he's not in jail because he couldn't be jailed, didn't you get? YOU brought this up.
Respect71 wrote:
You continue to being in information for a point, I assume, are you going to make it soon?
You continue to being in information for a point, I assume, are you going to make it soon?
You continue to being in information for a point, I assume, are you going to make it soon?
It would help if you caught on to the reality that the point of the information you are getting is that it is in response to arguments and questions you have raised. It's why my replies look like they do, I am replying to your thoughts. It's not my fault you never seem to remember what they were, even though I leave them for you as a reminder. PS, please tell me that you just clipped that sentence the first time you used it and pasted it in, I would hate to think your mind thought that right three times in a row.
Respect71 wrote:
Regardless of appeal the Constitution is there for protect those like this baker.
The Constitution protects the baker and his unfortunate choice of beliefs, but it also protects the rights of this couple to shop for a wedding cake while gay, which HE violated. The state's interest in ensuring that folk don't have to deal with such irrational bigotry and acts of discrimination in the public square outweigh his right to claim that God blesses such thoughts and practices, so he gets to get away with them. Would he get to say God does not approve of and he can refuse to do a wedding cake for a Black couple too? Or is his right to claim a God exception to the law limited just to non-heterosexuals?
Respect71 wrote:
LOL… So “technically” than can only purchase the wedding cake in MA.“Technically” the baker has no obligation to sell them a wedding cake in Colorado where our law is clear.
A baker isn't an agent of the state and you don't have to remain so obtuse.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#336 Dec 16, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>It CAN go further, it doee raised. It's why my replies look like they do, I am replying to your thoughts. It's not my fault
<quoted text>A baker isn't an agent of the state and you don't have to remain so obtuse.
“It CAN go further, it does not have to. What part of, there is no word yet on whether he wants to appeal, aren't you getting?” What because you say it? http://www.710knus.com/kelleyandcompany.aspx
It’s still going and will continue because the 1st Amendment of our Constitution protects him

“You aren't being obtuse, it just comes to you naturally, I'm sorry. Colorado law recognizes sexual orientation as a suspect classification which it prohibits discrimination on the basis of, in places of public accommodation and in their provision of goods and services. This means, gay, straight or bisexual, you enjoy an equal right to go to this bakery and an equal right to order wedding cakes. Just because they are gay, straight, or bi is not a reason he can deny them entry or service, whether God agrees with his actions or not. They have as much right to be in his bakery and order a wedding cake while homosexual as does anyone else while heterosexual. This really isn't difficult to understand if you try.” And he has the right to bake cakes for ONLY man-woman marriages... and calling me names, doesn’t change that fact.

“Good grief, what part of he's not in jail because he couldn't be jailed, didn't you get? YOU brought this up.” You need to learn focus... You are all over the board.

“It would help if you caught on to the reality that the point of the information you are getting is that it is in response to arguments and questions you have raised. It's why my replies look like they do, I am replying to your thoughts. It's not my fault you never seem to remember what they were, even though I leave them for you as a reminder. PS, please tell me that you just clipped that sentence the first time you used it and pasted it in, I would hate to think your mind thought that right three times in a row.” You need to learn focus... You are all over the board.

“The Constitution protects the baker and his unfortunate choice of beliefs,” So now you start to show your colors.

“but it also protects the rights of this couple to shop for a wedding cake while gay, which HE violated.” If he is exercising his right to his religion, how is he VIOLATING their rights to a cake when there are hundreds of other places they can go?

“The state's interest in ensuring that folk don't have to deal with such irrational bigotry and acts of discrimination in the public square outweigh his right to claim that God blesses such thoughts and practices, so he gets to get away with them.” So no your are going to have to prove why not baking a cake for a gay couple is “irrational bigotry and acts of discrimination”. Especially given that a majority of Christians believe the behavior of homosexuality is sin.

“Would he get to say God does not approve of and he can refuse to do a wedding cake for a Black couple too? Or is his right to claim a God exception to the law limited just to non-heterosexuals?” Let’s deal with what is, because now it seems to be you who is irrational.

“A baker isn't an agent of the state and you don't have to remain so obtuse.” No, he is an individual of these United States exercising his 1st Amendment rights.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#337 Dec 16, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Won’t it be great when someone like me comes to your place of business and encounters your sweet and kind charm and a brings a civil suit against you for discrimination? I will pray that doesn’t happen to you.
You have borne false witness by exactly reversing the reality:

I have not kicked xstain mullahs out of my business, nor worked for laws preventing them from adopting or marrying, nor tried to remove their employment protections.

Our "religious" freaks have done all this and worse regarding glbt people. You have a problem with projection, with basic thinking, with science, with a non theocracy, and we _know_ from the record who the bigots are.

So you may stop being a pretend victim, you lying, disgusting, christer idiot.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#338 Dec 16, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>You have borne false witness by exactly reversing the reality:

I have not kicked xstain mullahs out of my business, nor worked for laws preventing them from adopting or marrying, nor tried to remove their employment protections.

Our "religious" freaks have done all this and worse regarding glbt people. You have a problem with projection, with basic thinking, with science, with a non theocracy, and we _know_ from the record who the bigots are.

So you may stop being a pretend victim, you lying, disgusting, christer idiot.
I'm not the victim... The baker is, apparently by someone as hate and vindictive as you are.

Thank God our Constitution protects American individuals from sad angry people like you. Yet, I'll continue to pray for you.

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) 13 hr tbird19482 30,001
News Man in fight with builder over shifting soil (Jun '07) 21 hr byefelicia 110
Male on Female Facesitting topix? (Nov '16) 22 hr Wrestler facesitter 26
Denver co sex right now! (May '15) Thu AJS3739 9
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) Oct 18 good hacker here 743
Red Dot Storage Oct 16 Doug 4
Men wearing panties and bra and sex with women (Jul '16) Oct 14 Xdresser6317 26

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages