Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 3,824

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)

Full Story

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2876 Jul 30, 2014
Respect71 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.” 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.
"How do you blame the judge for deciding a case in accordance with what the Supreme Court has already articulated?"
- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)

"It's time to stop making arguments we will lose," – Republican A.G. Roy Cooper (NC)

"Buy yourself a rat and have it give you extensive tutoring on what to do when the ship you're responsible for starts to sink" - DNF
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2878 Jul 30, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>"How do you blame the judge for deciding a case in accordance with what the Supreme Court has already articulated?"
- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
A closely held business is a person with religious rights.
- The US Supreme Court.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2879 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
A closely held business is a person with religious rights.
- The US Supreme Court.
Wondering, so your position is that all laws regulating business have been nullified by the Hobby Lobby ruling?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2880 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
A closely held business is a person with religious rights.
- The US Supreme Court.
This has been explained to you many times.

I'll try again.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. The Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under Title II when there is reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief in such cases. Individuals can also file suit to enforce their rights under Title II and other federal and state statutes may also provide remedies for discrimination in places of public accommodation.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_...

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.

http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.ht...

"It's time to stop making arguments we will lose," – Republican A.G. Roy Cooper (NC)

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2881 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
A closely held business is a person with religious rights.
- The US Supreme Court.
Your case says a closely held business can't be forced to purchase services it feels contradict their religious beliefs.

Since the customer is paying here, then your business can't claim they are being forced to purchase something.

"It's time to stop making arguments we will lose," – Republican A.G. Roy Cooper (NC)

LMAO

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2882 Jul 31, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Let's substitute an orange crayon for the supreme court definition of a small company.
If we must dumb things dow to your level, I suppose we must.
Wondering wrote:
An orange crayon is only orange when you are coloring an orange. That's what you are saying.
I didn't say, it, you did; and it is every bit as stupid as it sounds.
Wondering wrote:
Maybe that example is simple enough for you to understand.
Wondering, I am not having difficulty with the issue. You are the one who interpreted the issue in crayon.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2883 Jul 31, 2014
Wondering wrote:
I would have supplied the cake and I don't care if gays marry.
You frequently make this claim, but the fact that you continue to post tends to indicate the the contrary.
Wondering wrote:
Where is the bigotry?
Right behind the lie that you don't care that homosexuals can marry.
If you don't really care, prove your resolve by not responding.
Wondering wrote:
You, otoh, want to see the baker stripped of his 1st amendment rights. To you he isn't a person, not even second class.
He is a person, and his rights ever never even threatened. Were you not an idiot, you would be able to illustrate specifically how his rights were violated? The simple fact is that he broke the law.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2884 Jul 31, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
If we must dumb things dow to your level, I suppose we must.
<quoted text>
I didn't say, it, you did; and it is every bit as stupid as it sounds.
<quoted text>
Wondering, I am not having difficulty with the issue. You are the one who interpreted the issue in crayon.
Yes, and I see it's still over your head. Wow is all I can say.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2885 Jul 31, 2014
lides wrote:
Right behind the lie that you don't care that homosexuals can marry.
If you don't really care, prove your resolve by not responding.
BWAHAHAHA! That might work on people with a 3rd grade mind, like yours. Isn't it about time you ask everyone to stop responding to me while you continue to? You haven't done that for a couple of months now. Wow, it's not even Friday and you have me laughing very hard.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2886 Jul 31, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The entire world is at war? News to me. Compared to the few thousand years, skirmishes in Israel, Iraq, and Ukraine are small potatoes.
<quoted text>
The rules of logic long established by philosophers.
<quoted text>
It doesn't fail either one of us. Secularism nor any of the values I listed or personally support led to Stalin's regime.
“The entire world is at war? News to me. Compared to the few thousand years, skirmishes in Israel, Iraq, and Ukraine are small potatoes.” Wow… So you claim there is world peace? Now we see your state of mind.

“The rules of logic long established by philosophers.” Your “secular values” are based on “The rules of logic long established by philosophers.”. Which philosophers and why?

“It doesn't fail either one of us. Secularism nor any of the values I listed or personally support led to Stalin's regime.” Then you ignore history like you do the Bible.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2887 Jul 31, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, no! I've been called out for telling the truth about your lies. Do you know what, that in no way worries me. I don't mind telling the truth.
<quoted text>
I've said nothing about you that you have not earned. I don't deny the first amendment, and the baker did break the law, a fact you seem conveniently willing to overlook.
<quoted text>
Business is business, faith is faith. One can easily provide a service to one with differing views because business is business. If one's faith is so deep that they feel the need not to provide services to those who believe differently, they would be wise to open a non-profit, tax free, ministry, or to open a for profit, taxable, club where they could have input into who may avail themselves of the business's services.
Providing a service for someone holding differing religious views in no way violates the religious freedom of the proprietor.
<quoted text>
No, he was offered options, and made a choice. He could serve everyone, he could drop the service of making wedding cakes, or he could close.
Face it, kiddo, he broke the law.
The First Amendment of our Constitution allows the Baker to be a Christian in all aspects of his life. The government forcing him to believe the same as you or face punishment is un-Constitutional.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2888 Jul 31, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Then tell me the purpose of
1) murdering small children
2) telling your followers rape and slavery are okay
3) commanding followers to commit genocide
4) torturing those who do you follow you
Please explain how these things are not monstrous.
<quoted text>
Impossible, because the Bible supports the institution of slavery.
<quoted text>
Why should I respond to your requests when you never respond to mine?
Why does the Bible god say that people MAY capture and purchase slaves?
“Then tell me the purpose of
1) murdering small children
2) telling your followers rape and slavery are okay
3) commanding followers to commit genocide
4) torturing those who do you follow you

Please explain how these things are not monstrous.” When you read more than one verse I’d love to help you learn who God is.

“Impossible, because the Bible supports the institution of slavery.” That’s the problem with reading only one verse, ignorance fails you.

“Why should I respond to your requests when you never respond to mine?”
You can’t respond because you haven’t adhered to the “secular value” of knowledge. You choose ignorance, so you must hold that dear as a “secular Value”.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2889 Jul 31, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, creating wedding cakes is not against his belief system. He is willing to make them.
<quoted text>
To be blunt, this is complete BS. You are making ridiculous contortions to justify your hypocrisy.
There is no way you can say that "I don't want to serve black people a product because my religion opposes it" should be illegal, while "I don't want to server gay people a product because my religion opposes it" should be legal. They're the same thing.
“To be blunt, this is complete BS. You are making ridiculous contortions to justify your hypocrisy.” Based on your “secular values” that by your very admission,“don't "come" from anywhere.”

“There is no way you can say that "I don't want to serve black people a product because my religion opposes it" should be illegal, while "I don't want to server gay people a product because my religion opposes it" should be legal. They're the same thing.” We are not talking about skin color, we are talking about the institution of marriage, so no they are nowhere NEAR the same thing.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2890 Jul 31, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Relationship? To who? From who? To what?
Relationship with God, and with humanity.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2891 Jul 31, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should only a religious belief regarding who should be able
Why? Gays are no more above the law than people of faith. Why should people be refused service simply because they belong to a controversial sect of Christianity?
<quoted text>
I believe no one is above the law. It's sad you think otherwise.
“Why should only a religious belief regarding who should be able to marry justify exemption from compliance with a law to the exclusion of religious beliefs regarding marriage?” The First Amendment of the Constitution.

“Why shouldn't people who have a religious belief that interracial marriage is wrong be allowed to deny services to an interracial couple? Why should people who have a religious belief that blacks are inferior be allowed to deny services to blacks? It's both irrational and arbitrary to pick one religious belief out of many and give it and only it an exemption from compliance with the law.” Skin color and the institution of marriage are two very different things.

“By that logic you think a business owner should be able to refuse to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple or a black couple if their religious beliefs demand it as long as they generally agree to sell other types of cakes to such couples. Is that correct?” No. AGAIN, we are NOT discussing skin color we are talking about the government forcing a baker to support and participate in a institution that he doesn’t believe in,“gay marriage”.

“Constitutional law distinguishes between actual religious beliefs and actions motivated by religious beliefs. The former are almost always exempt from government regulation while the later are subject to government regulation. Simply stated, running a business or baking/selling cakes is not deemed an act of worship under civil law regardless of an individual's belief otherwise.” Yet, the First Amendment is.

“Lots of things have meaning to people and people can and do hold hold conflicting religious beliefs. That doesn't mean people should be able to pick when or if they wish to comply with any given law.” Because of the First Amendment and the nature of THIS case the baker can be who he is.

“Churches are allowed to discriminate because they are private organizations which can set their own standards for membership, requirements for participating in church sanctioned activities and policies for using church property. They aren't considered public accommodations selling goods and services to the general public and therefore aren't subject to public accommodation provisions of anti-discrimination laws. It has nothing to do with marriage as an "institution".” Because of the nature of this case (and the institution of marriage) the wedding industry will have to be exempt from accommodation provision, because of the First Amendment of the United States.

“None of our rights are absolute.” No one is claiming they are. But when there is a law that forces an American to support and participate with his/her talents in a institution that he/she doesn’t agree with that is un-Constitutional.

“Why? Gays are no more above the law than people of faith. Why should people be refused service simply because they belong to a controversial sect of Christianity?” Because of the First Amendment of our Constitution… I give you credit for being consistent.

“I believe no one is above the law. It's sad you think otherwise.” It’s sad that you believe the roll of government is to force persons to use their talents to support and participate in institutions they don’t believe in.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2892 Jul 31, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>"How do you blame the judge for deciding a case in accordance with what the Supreme Court has already articulated?"
- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
"It's time to stop making arguments we will lose," – Republican A.G. Roy Cooper (NC)
"Buy yourself a rat and have it give you extensive tutoring on what to do when the ship you're responsible for starts to sink" - DNF
I support “SSM”! What I don’t support is government forcing Americans to use their talents to support and participate in that institutions!

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2893 Jul 31, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The First Amendment of our Constitution allows the Baker to be a Christian in all aspects of his life. The government forcing him to believe the same as you or face punishment is un-Constitutional.
The government didn't force him to believe anything, and it did not punish him in any way. It forced him to treat anyone who frequented his establishment equally, and to provide the same services to all who asked for them. Doing so in no way infringed upon his freedoms.

Only an idiot would claim to the contrary.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2894 Jul 31, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The government didn't force him to believe anything, and it did not punish him in any way.
Only an idiot would believe that.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2895 Jul 31, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Only an idiot would believe that.
Wondering, you are reiterating arguments that have already lost in court, and on appeal.

An intelligent person, holding an opinion similar to yours, would realize that they need to come up with a new argument.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2896 Jul 31, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, you are reiterating arguments that have already lost in court, and on appeal.
An intelligent person, holding an opinion similar to yours, would realize that they need to come up with a new argument.
You already conceded. An intelligent person wouldn't follow up with this.

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
The Post's Nuggets Night features GM Tim Connel... 40 min Ace Smith 4
The truth about CARFAX (Nov '09) 2 hr lisa 25
girls aressted in syria 2 hr Bry 3
last post wins! (Feb '11) 2 hr Bry 24,670
Mexicans fear U.S. immigration plan (May '07) 4 hr ugh 18,683
Denver Health Medical Center, place of horrors (Jul '13) 5 hr Bry 22
COMFORT DENTAL ....How Many of you feel Ripped ... (Apr '08) 12 hr Tooth Fairy 88
Denver Dating
Find my Match

Denver Jobs

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]