Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 40230 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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2837 Jul 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
1. No they weren't. None of our rights are absolute and every right is subject to government regulation within the parameters allowed by the constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS. Anti-disrmination laws have been upheld as constitutional and neither speech nor religion are sacred cows exempt from such regulation.
2. On the contrary, the baker made it clear his wedding cakes had conditions attached with which the purchasers must comply if they wished to purchase a wedding cake for themselves. Unfortunately for the baker, his conditions meant he did not offer his wedding cakes to the general public but only to a subset of the general public that excluded a protected class of people in violation Colorado anti-discrmination law.
1. Yes they were. His 1st amendment rights were violated and the constitution was ignored.
2. You have that backward. Gays are the sub-set. If they wished to purchase a wedding cake there are bakers all over Denver that would accommodate them.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2838 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I might add to this excellent analysis, that the baker's rights were never even threatened,
They weren't threatened, they were ignored. Gay rights trump the constitution.
Now the baker is a closely held company and the supreme court has defined them as people with religious rights.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2839 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
They weren't threatened, they were ignored.
No, Wondering, never were his free exercise or free speech in danger, particularly since he elected not to make the cake. His decision to break the law by denying service brought about his legal woes, but as I have said before, if one breaks the law, they should expect consequences.
Wondering wrote:
Gay rights trump the constitution.
No, Wondering, the US Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection trump bigotry and discrimination. Face it, kiddo, he broke the law.
Wondering wrote:
Now the baker is a closely held company and the supreme court has defined them as people with religious rights.
Sorry, Wondering, even applying that logic, you will have a tough time getting past the anti-discrimination laws. Give it a shot though, it will be fun to watch you make a fool of yourself.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2840 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. Yes they were. His 1st amendment rights were violated and the constitution was ignored.
Courts of law disagree with your delusions. Just like professional organizations disagree with your delusional assertions about homosexuality being a mental illness. Unfortunately for you, your delusions do not define actual reality. Do the world a favor and use your VA benefits to get the professional medical help you need for your obvious detachment from reality.
Wondering wrote:
2. You have that backward. Gays are the sub-set. If they wished to purchase a wedding cake there are bakers all over Denver that would accommodate them.
Unfortunately for you and the baker at issue, neither the general public nor gays specifically are required by Colorado law to search for a public accommodation that will agree to serve them. The law requires public accommodations (of which the baker is deemed one) to serve the general public equally; refusal to do so to members of a protected class subjects the public accommodation to penalties and/or punishment as provided by the law.

“Taste great in milk!”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

.

#2841 Jul 29, 2014
Stupid gay wedding cake.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2842 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Wondering, never were his free exercise or free speech in danger, particularly since he elected not to make the cake.
You really are that stupid.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2843 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
No, Wondering, the US Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection trump bigotry and discrimination. Face it, kiddo, he broke the law.
The law ignored the 1st amendment.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2844 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
it will be fun to watch you make a fool of yourself.
I watch you do that every time you post. It's great fun.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2845 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The law ignored the 1st amendment.
No, it didn't. The 1st Amendment doesn't invalidate anti-discrimination laws. If it did, then all the laws preventing discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc would have been dumped decades ago.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2846 Jul 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“No, I don't. If you can show how the rest of the Bible changes the meaning of *that verse*, please do so.” If you didn’t then why repeat the ONE verse?
“I gave you numerous examples. Do you deny them?” You need to cite your source before I can say either way. The spewing is all over the place.
“How smokes you're delusional. They didn't have to "deal" with the immorality; they were the source of the immorality, and it was based on their religion.” No, it is based on the sinful nature of humanity… If you truly read the Bible you would understand that.
“So therefore Christians are integrating modern, secular values into their moral systems. Certainly Christianity cannot be both strongly pro-gay rights AND strongly anti-gay rights.” If this is true where are the “secular values” that Christians and Jews are integrating to?
“There are many more Bible verses that support the practice of slavery. I am trying to focus on one so you don't attempt to derail the conversation. It isn't going very well because you refuse to address that verse. Why?” I have repeatedly addressed it pointing that you exclude the rest of the Bible… Please explain how Gods two greatest commands cause Christians to own slaves?
“Can you name some of these secular societies?” We can start with the warring tribes of Africa who would capture and sell their own into slavery… But the most prominent of Secular cultures to own slaves are, Soviet Russia under Joseph Stalin and Nazi Germany… Both societies had very similar thoughts as you.
“How so? I've given you a verse that specifically says you CAN have slaves.” If you believe that and trust in the God of the Bible, go ahead and see where it gets you.
“No, but clearly he didn't apply them to the practice of slavery, or he would have condemned it, rather than telling slaves to be dutiful for their masters and telling masters not to mistreat slaves. He didn't recognize that slavery *itself* is mistreatment.” You need to answer this question: Why does God have slavery in the Bible?
Ignorance.
You have failed to explain why the govt. should hold one religious view as more valid than another.

That's what you're arguing for BTW.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2847 Jul 29, 2014
@ Respect71 and wonderbreadboy

Adopt a rat.

Have it tutor you about sinking ships and the best time to get abandon ship and save your silly butts..

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2848 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You really are that stupid.
You really are that delusional.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2849 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You really are that stupid.
And you have failed to address the topic.
Wondering wrote:
The law ignored the 1st amendment.
No, I haven't. the first amendment does not give shop owners a right to force potential clients to abide by the shop owner's religious beliefs in order to obtain service.
Wondering wrote:
I watch you do that every time you post. It's great fun.
I think it is hysterical to watch you make a fool of yourself while fialing to address the topic at hand.

Tell us again how the court that decided against the bigoted baker was wrong, and how the Colorado Civil Rights Committee that upheld the decision was also wrong.

face it wondering, the man had his day in court and lost... Because he broke the law.

This isn't rocket science, kiddo.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2850 Jul 30, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
There is peace.
<quoted text>
What is reason based on? Rules of logic. Senses. Experience.
<quoted text>
No, clearly he did not. He didn't value any of those things.
“There is peace.” Wait, what world do you live in? 2012 the US saw 1.2 million violent crimes, 15,000 murders, 84,000 rapes, 600,000 assaults… Hamas continues to bomb Israel, while Iran strives for a nuke to blow Israel off the planet, Iraq is not being taken over by Jihadists and Afghanistan is falling back to Taliban control, Russia is warring with Ukraine and just brought down a plane full of innocent people, North Korea continues to build rockets that can reach the US and threatens the US constantly… and you are claiming,“There is peace”?
Based on evidence you are not accurate.

“What is reason based on? Rules of logic. Senses. Experience.” Who’s rules and logic?

“No, clearly he did not. He didn't value any of those things.” Clearly… Yet, he’s the most infamous secularist to date, wiping out more human lives than all of the religious wars in HISTORY combined, because of the belief that secular values were far “superior” than that of religious ones… Someone else stated that to me as well… Oh yes, that was you!
So does secularism fail him or you?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2851 Jul 30, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Stalin and Hitler's primary concerns were power. They put that above all else.
<quoted text>
You disagree because you're brainwashed with your silly religion. If I told you of a person who murdered small children, told his followers that rape and slavery were okay, commanded them to commit genocide, and tortured people who did not follow him, you'd say that person was a monster. But because that person is your god, you pretend otherwise.
<quoted text>
Of course you believe slavery is immoral. You recognize it as harmful, cruel, and dehumanizing. The Bible does not.
See? The morals you developed yourself are already superior to the Bible's.
<quoted text>
No, what's sad is that I'm an atheist and my Bible knowledge far exceeds yours, even though it's your holy book.
“Stalin and Hitler's primary concerns were power. They put that above all else.” Based on their “secular values”.

“You disagree because you're brainwashed with your silly religion. If I told you of a person who murdered small children, told his followers that rape and slavery were okay, commanded them to commit genocide, and tortured people who did not follow him, you'd say that person was a monster. But because that person is your god, you pretend otherwise.” I know otherwise, because I have knowledge of the Bible, of God, and His purpose.

“Of course you believe slavery is immoral. You recognize it as harmful, cruel, and dehumanizing. The Bible does not.” It’s because of the Bible I recognize it’s immoral, your ignorance of the very value you claim to hold dear (knowledge) shields you from that fact.

“No, what's sad is that I'm an atheist and my Bible knowledge far exceeds yours, even though it's your holy book.” Then please, with all your grand knowledge of the Bible, tell us why God gave it to us. At the very least articulate the simple purpose of God’s word in its entirety.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2852 Jul 30, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
False. The baker simply has to create a cake, which is an action that is clearly not against his belief system.
<quoted text>
Not a chance. Anti-discrimination laws have already been established as Constitutional.
“False. The baker simply has to create a cake, which is an action that is clearly not against his belief system.” Not a cake… A WEDDING cake for an institution that he shouldn’t be forced to support and participate in.

“Not a chance. Anti-discrimination laws have already been established as Constitutional.” Anti-discrimination laws for people are Constitutional but this case is about discriminating the INSTITUTION and can the government FORCE an individual to participate and support just because they provide goods and services for marriage institutions. SCOTUS will have to make a ruling for these cases.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2853 Jul 30, 2014
The_Box wrote:
Respect, I'm not going to continue the slavery discussion unless you answer a simple question:
WHY does the Bible god tell the Hebrews, numerous times, that they are allowed to capture, purchase, and own slaves?
“Respect, I'm not going to continue the slavery discussion unless you answer a simple question:” LOL… That’s your choice.

“WHY does the Bible god tell the Hebrews, numerous times, that they are allowed to capture, purchase, and own slaves?” The simple answer is RELATIONSHIP. To go deeper will be difficult for you and you will have to read more than one verse. My guess is you won’t allow yourself to understand despite your “secular value” of knowledge.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2854 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
You really need to change your name, Respect doesn't fit you.
Might I suggest Liar71?
<quoted text>
No, Respect, he wasn't. He illegally denied service, and then lost in court. Rather than provide service in a tolerant manner in the future,he elected to stop providing wedding cakes to anyone. Apparently, bigotry was more important than business to him.
<quoted text>
Providing the service in no way infringes upon his religious beliefs. He could bake the cake, and still hold those same beliefs, not marry someone of the same sex himself, attend the same church, and be the same bigot he always was, he would just be one wedding cake richer.
<quoted text>
Actually, he stopped offering one service. It does not paint you as a very truthful person when you lie like this.
<quoted text>
He wasn't punished. He broke the law and suffered no penalty or jail time, he was merely instructed to provide his wedding cake services equally to all, and he elected to provide them not at all.
“You really need to change your name, Respect doesn't fit you.
Might I suggest Liar71?” More names calling… You continue to show your true nature.
“No, Respect, he wasn't. He illegally denied service, and then lost in court. Rather than provide service in a tolerant manner in the future,he elected to stop providing wedding cakes to anyone. Apparently, bigotry was more important than business to him.” Says the intolerant person who calls people names that don’t believe the same as you, denies the First Amendment, and loves the government forcing your belief upon others.

“Providing the service in no way infringes upon his religious beliefs. He could bake the cake, and still hold those same beliefs,” How? When he has to take hours to plan and bake, show at the venue, and participate with a “gay marriage” that he doesn’t believe in, and you think the he can still hold that belief?

Can the gay caterer, in good conscience, cater a anti gay event? Should the government force him/her to provide that service? NO!

“Actually, he stopped offering one service. It does not paint you as a very truthful person when you lie like this.” It’s you who isn’t being truthful… He was forced to quit… Just like the FIirefox (Mozilla) CEO was forced out of his position and it’s sad that you and your crowd do such things to fellow Americans.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2855 Jul 30, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the issue is exemption from laws in general based on asserted conflicts with religious beliefs. You can't just arbitrarily draw the line where you find it convenient as the constitutional principle of equal protection doesn't allow that. Similarly situated people must be treated the same.
<quoted text>
Why should gays be exempted from this general principle?
<quoted text>
If people are unable to comply with the laws that govern and regulate the business or industry in which they wish to work, they should find a different occupation.
<quoted text>
The government doesn't compel businesses to engage in speech with which they disagree. I already told you what the current constitutional law is on this topic. The problem is you erroneously consider baking a cake or catering a meal or taking a picture as "speech" when the law doesn't. You also erroneously consider running a business an act of worship when the law doesn't.
<quoted text>
How some Americans use God as an excuse to discriminate against others is way beyond me.
“No, the issue is exemption from laws in general based on asserted conflicts with religious beliefs. You can't just arbitrarily draw the line where you find it convenient as the constitutional principle of equal protection doesn't allow that. Similarly situated people must be treated the same.” Does “gay marriage” mean something to you? If so then how is drawing a line in regards to that institution arbitrary?

“Why should gays be exempted from this general principle?” Gays aren’t exempt from the “general principle” which has been show the baker GENERALLY served gays.

“If people are unable to comply with the laws that govern and regulate the business or industry in which they wish to work, they should find a different occupation.” Because we have the First Amendment o the Constitution. The government is going to respect “gay marriage” in regards to wedding services above other religions? Marriage means something to everyone and it’s not the government’s place to force Americans to provide a service within the wedding industry based on these beliefs. Churches can discriminate because of the institution and so should anyone in the wedding industry BECAUSE of the instution.

“The government doesn't compel businesses to engage in speech with which they disagree. I already told you what the current constitutional law is on this topic. The problem is you erroneously consider baking a cake or catering a meal or taking a picture as "speech" when the law doesn't. You also erroneously consider running a business an act of worship when the law doesn't.” Because the First Amendment protects worship and speech… However, it’s sad that you would support punishing the gay caterer that would deny service to the Westboro Baptist Church anti-gay event.

“How some Americans use God as an excuse to discriminate against others is way beyond me.” Again, it’s not discrimination the individual, it’s the institution, and it’s sad you support government forcing those who don’t believe the same as you.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2856 Jul 30, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You have failed to explain why the govt. should hold one religious view as more valid than another.
That's what you're arguing for BTW.
Churches have that right, so why would you constrain an individual or business in the wedding industry…

Frankly, you have failed to explain why government should hold the institution “gay marriage” more valid than any other…. That’s what you’re arguing for BTW.

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
What would happen if the United States ever dec... (Oct '10) 1 hr Parilin 208
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 5 hr tbird19482 25,299
last post wins! (Feb '11) 13 hr Red_Forman 26,252
Looking for a nodsquad friend 19 hr Tracie 6
Classless Bronco Ownership 19 hr Darphine 18
Got Jesus? Sat Solijhi 9
Nicole Dubois Savage Sep 22 Say What 4

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages