Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 36268 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 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3002 Aug 5, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“I would know if I served someone. No one needs to tell me.” My bet is you haven’t a clue…
What would you base that bet on?
Respect71 wrote:
“Nothing.” You lie… Everyone is a slave to someone or something
Back up your assertion.
Respect71 wrote:
“Now stop avoiding the point: Tell me why supporting slavery is relevant to the relationship between the Hebrews and their god.” Do you have any valuable relationships? You don’t do anything nice for them, or in other words “serve” them? Relationship.
I do nice things for people, yes. But I do so of my own volition, not because I am forced to.

Are you saying that the Hebrews practiced slavery to serve God?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3003 Aug 5, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
My position is solid and founded… An American who is guaranteed liberty is discriminating against supporting and participation in the institution or “gay marriage”, not because they are gay.
Tell me which of the following is wrong:

P1. Discrimination is when you treat people differently based on an attribute.
P2. Sexual orientation is an attribute.
P3. The baker will sell a wedding cake to a straight couple.
P4. The baker will not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.
P5. The difference between the two couples is their sexual orientation.
C. The baker is engaging in discrimination.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3004 Aug 5, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Why are those forms of discrimination wrong, but discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation is okay?” Against it’s about supporting and participation in the institution, not because they are gay.
The reason he doesn't support them being marriage is because they are gay.
Respect71 wrote:
“It absolutely relates to this case because ANY industry can be seen as religious.” It doesn’t because you are speaking of skin color, religion, and nationality, when the issue is the institution of marriage and whether or not government should force an Americans to use their talents to support and participate in that institution.
Honestly, you're just too stupid to comprehend the arguments being put forth. You have no ability to understand analogies or a broader picture of anything.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3005 Aug 5, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“No, it doesn't. It needs to be encouraged, but the basic ability to put oneself in another's shoes is not taught.” You your self said humans are born knowing nothing… Now you’re going against that? Based on what?
Knowledge is distinct from functionality.
Respect71 wrote:
“Which Christian values? Please be specific.” Love. For God and His created fellow man.
Love is a value that is neither unique nor original to Christianity.
Respect71 wrote:
“In what way?” Causing better societies, uplifted peoples, all over the world and The United States of America, as well as Israel.
The US was founded under secular principles. Your ignorance of history is astounding.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3006 Aug 5, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you go against your “secular value” of knowledge and choose ignorance you will always be in this place.
Another cowardly evasion.

Why does god tell the Hebrews they can practice slavery if slavery is bad?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3007 Aug 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you base that bet on?
<quoted text>
Back up your assertion.
<quoted text>
I do nice things for people, yes. But I do so of my own volition, not because I am forced to.
Are you saying that the Hebrews practiced slavery to serve God?
“What would you base that bet on?”

“Back up your assertion.” Do you have goals? What do you want? You are a slave to what it takes to achieve that...

“I do nice things for people, yes. But I do so of my own volition, not because I am forced to.” Why? Why do things nice for people when you don’t have to?

“Are you saying that the Hebrews practiced slavery to serve God?” To understand relationship with God and all of mankind.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3008 Aug 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me which of the following is wrong:
P1. Discrimination is when you treat people differently based on an attribute.
P2. Sexual orientation is an attribute.
P3. The baker will sell a wedding cake to a straight couple.
P4. The baker will not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.
P5. The difference between the two couples is their sexual orientation.
C. The baker is engaging in discrimination.
“P1. Discrimination is when you treat people differently based on an attribute.” Wrong. Discrimination is based on thoughtful (or sometimes not) decrement.

“P2. Sexual orientation is an attribute.” This is now VOID to your point.

“P3. The baker will sell a wedding cake to a straight couple.” True, because that couple make a tradition institution of marriage which is between a husband and wife.

“P4. The baker will not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.” True, because the institution they are engaged in is not traditional and is absent a husband or a wife.

“P5. The difference between the two couples is their sexual orientation.” False the difference in the two couples is the type of institution they are engaged in.

“C. The baker is engaging in discrimination.” True. Based on the institution of marriage.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3009 Aug 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason he doesn't support them being marriage is because they are gay.
<quoted text>
Honestly, you're just too stupid to comprehend the arguments being put forth. You have no ability to understand analogies or a broader picture of anything.
“The reason he doesn't support them being marriage is because they are gay.” Wow… That’s a bold statement, and really not the truth. He has no say in whether to support or not support them being “gay married”. He does, however, have the right to reserve his talents to support and participate in the marriage institution of his choosing based on what he believes.

“Honestly, you're just too stupid to comprehend the arguments being put forth. You have no ability to understand analogies or a broader picture of anything.” Calling me stupid shows that you can’t present arguments that apply to this case, especially when you use analogies based on race and not institutions.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3010 Aug 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Knowledge is distinct from functionality.
<quoted text>
Love is a value that is neither unique nor original to Christianity.
<quoted text>
The US was founded under secular principles. Your ignorance of history is astounding.
“Knowledge is distinct from functionality.” Knowledge is a choice of which you choose against in regards to knowing the Bible and God.
Which is odd because your claim knowledge is a “secular value” that you hold, which apparently, since “They don't "come" from anywhere;” you can pick and choose when to exercise knowledge at a whim.

“Love is a value that is neither unique nor original to Christianity.” I never said it was, I said Christians headed and speared the movements such as abolitionism, suffrage, anti-segregation, and provided a safe secure Country for all Americans.

“The US was founded under secular principles. Your ignorance of history is astounding.” Our Country was founded upon religious freedom and the ideal of self-government, which stems from Judeo-Christian values. Point to the history book that states,““The US was founded under secular principles.”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3011 Aug 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Another cowardly evasion.
Why does god tell the Hebrews they can practice slavery if slavery is bad?
“Another cowardly evasion.” Ignorance in denying your ignorance, sprinkled with a dash of insult. Read above.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3012 Aug 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“What would you base that bet on?”
“Back up your assertion.” Do you have goals? What do you want? You are a slave to what it takes to achieve that...
That's the most absurd definition of "slave" I've ever heard.
Respect71 wrote:
“I do nice things for people, yes. But I do so of my own volition, not because I am forced to.” Why? Why do things nice for people when you don’t have to?
I care about those people and wish for them to be happy. In addition, it makes me feel better as a person and I would hope that they would reciprocate nice actions for other people.
Respect71 wrote:
“Are you saying that the Hebrews practiced slavery to serve God?” To understand relationship with God and all of mankind.
How did practicing slavery increase that understanding? Please be specific.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3013 Aug 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“P1. Discrimination is when you treat people differently based on an attribute.” Wrong. Discrimination is based on thoughtful (or sometimes not) decrement.
Which is occuring in this case. P1 stands.
Respect71 wrote:
“P2. Sexual orientation is an attribute.” This is now VOID to your point.
“P3. The baker will sell a wedding cake to a straight couple.” True, because that couple make a tradition institution of marriage which is between a husband and wife.
“P4. The baker will not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.” True, because the institution they are engaged in is not traditional and is absent a husband or a wife.
You have accepted all of these.
Respect71 wrote:
“P5. The difference between the two couples is their sexual orientation.” False the difference in the two couples is the type of institution they are engaged in.
The type of institution is based on their sexual orientation. P5 stands.
Respect71 wrote:
“C. The baker is engaging in discrimination.” True. Based on the institution of marriage.
WTF? Two posts ago you said the baker wasn't discriminating.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3014 Aug 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“The reason he doesn't support them being marriage is because they are gay.” Wow… That’s a bold statement, and really not the truth. He has no say in whether to support or not support them being “gay married”. He does, however, have the right to reserve his talents to support and participate in the marriage institution of his choosing based on what he believes.
You're right, he doesn't have a say, which includes baking a cake, which is not support or participation in a gay marriage.
Respect71 wrote:
“Honestly, you're just too stupid to comprehend the arguments being put forth. You have no ability to understand analogies or a broader picture of anything.” Calling me stupid shows that you can’t present arguments that apply to this case, especially when you use analogies based on race and not institutions.
I have presented arguments that apply to this case; you just couldn't understand them.

I can define the institution of marriage to include only people of the same race just as you can define the institution of marriage to include only people of different genders.

You don't seem to understand: I can declare ANYTHING to be a religious institution and it is no less valid than your declaration than man-woman marriage is a religious institution.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3015 Aug 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Knowledge is a choice of which you choose against in regards to knowing the Bible and God.
False. That's your choice, as you choose to remain ignorant of the Bible's moral flaws, including support of slavery.
Respect71 wrote:

“Love is a value that is neither unique nor original to Christianity.” I never said it was, I said Christians headed and speared the movements such as abolitionism, suffrage, anti-segregation, and provided a safe secure Country for all Americans.
As I pointed out, Christians were also the opponents of all those things. That doesn't tell us anything, since most Americans have historically been Christians. Now, if Christians were a tiny minority and were leading those movements in opposition to other religious groups, then you might have a case for Christianity being the reason behind those movements. As it stands, you do not.
Respect71 wrote:

“The US was founded under secular principles. Your ignorance of history is astounding.” Our Country was founded upon religious freedom and the ideal of self-government, which stems from Judeo-Christian values.
Deuteronomy 13 says that anyone promoting other religions should be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17 says that anyone found worshiping other gods should be put to death.

"Religious freedom"

You should try reading the Federalist Papers. They outline the reasoning used for many of the primary principles within the Constitution. They reference the Bible ZERO times.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3016 Aug 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the most absurd definition of "slave" I've ever heard.
<quoted text>
I care about those people and wish for them to be happy. In addition, it makes me feel better as a person and I would hope that they would reciprocate nice actions for other people.
<quoted text>
How did practicing slavery increase that understanding? Please be specific.
“That's the most absurd definition of "slave" I've ever heard.” And you know this because your “secular values” where “They don't "come" from anywhere;”.

“I care about those people and wish for them to be happy. In addition, it makes me feel better as a person and I would hope that they would reciprocate nice actions for other people.”

“How did practicing slavery increase that understanding? Please be specific.” What its like to serve and to be served and understanding the relationship between them… You serve a person for your own shellfish purpose, but there are so many others that you can’t understand because you choose to deny your “secular value” of knowledge.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3017 Aug 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is occuring in this case. P1 stands.
<quoted text>
You have accepted all of these.
<quoted text>
The type of institution is based on their sexual orientation. P5 stands.
<quoted text>
WTF? Two posts ago you said the baker wasn't discriminating.
“Which is occuring in this case. P1 stands.” Yes.
“You have accepted all of these.” Yes
“The type of institution is based on their sexual orientation. P5 stands.” It’s based upon the relationship… Not sexual orientation… P5 is false.

“WTF? Two posts ago you said the baker wasn't discriminating.” Read again. The baker did NOT discriminate based on sexual orientation but on the support and participation of the institution.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3018 Aug 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, he doesn't have a say, which includes baking a cake, which is not support or participation in a gay marriage.
<quoted text>
I have presented arguments that apply to this case; you just couldn't understand them.
I can define the institution of marriage to include only people of the same race just as you can define the institution of marriage to include only people of different genders.
You don't seem to understand: I can declare ANYTHING to be a religious institution and it is no less valid than your declaration than man-woman marriage is a religious institution.
“You're right, he doesn't have a say, which includes baking a cake, which is not support or participation in a gay marriage.” Is the cake not part of the celebration? Does the baker not have to sit and plan and bake and deliver and show up at the event and set up the cake for the event? What about the photographer? In your mind neither of them participates in the event at all?

They have to support and participate in that institution, and if they don’t believe it is an institution they can support and participate in then they have the right not to, based on the First Amendment of our Constitution.

“I have presented arguments that apply to this case; you just couldn't understand them.” You presented race, religion and Nationality which is not what this case is about… Apparently it’s you who can’t understand.

“I can define the institution of marriage to include only people of the same race just as you can define the institution of marriage to include only people of different genders.” No you can’t. If you try you are being intellectually dishonest because of the what the institution is at it’s very nature.

“You don't seem to understand: I can declare ANYTHING to be a religious institution and it is no less valid than your declaration than man-woman marriage is a religious institution.” Except that you have to back it up with evidence and fact… Like you “secular values” where “They don't "come" from anywhere;”. Which by that very nature renders them meaningless.

All of human history marriage has had a husband and wife… So just because you declare “gay marriage” as a religious institution it’s so? No… because the is no evidence or fact to support your declaration as such.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3019 Aug 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
False. That's your choice, as you choose to remain ignorant of the Bible's moral flaws, including support of slavery.
<quoted text>
As I pointed out, Christians were also the opponents of all those things. That doesn't tell us anything, since most Americans have historically been Christians. Now, if Christians were a tiny minority and were leading those movements in opposition to other religious groups, then you might have a case for Christianity being the reason behind those movements. As it stands, you do not.
<quoted text>
Deuteronomy 13 says that anyone promoting other religions should be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17 says that anyone found worshiping other gods should be put to death.
"Religious freedom"
You should try reading the Federalist Papers. They outline the reasoning used for many of the primary principles within the Constitution. They reference the Bible ZERO times.
By all means, present the documentation that these movement were all secular.

Just because the Bible isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean our Country founded on secularism…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

To be secular is to be without a creator… But please present documentation.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3020 Aug 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“That's the most absurd definition of "slave" I've ever heard.” And you know this because your “secular values” where “They don't "come" from anywhere;”.
Why do you keep repeating the same talking point that only underlines that you couldn't understand my earlier posts? No one needs a reminder that those posts went over your head.

And no, your definition of slave being absurd isn't based on any values. It's based on basic word usage: slavery is forced and unchosen. If I have a goal, that's my choice.
Respect71 wrote:
“How did practicing slavery increase that understanding? Please be specific.” What its like to serve and to be served and understanding the relationship between them… You serve a person for your own shellfish purpose, but there are so many others that you can’t understand because you choose to deny your “secular value” of knowledge.
Stop avoiding the question.

“How did practicing slavery increase that understanding? Please be specific.”
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3021 Aug 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Which is occuring in this case. P1 stands.” Yes.
“You have accepted all of these.” Yes
“The type of institution is based on their sexual orientation. P5 stands.” It’s based upon the relationship… Not sexual orientation… P5 is false.
The relationship and the sexual orientation are linked. Gay people have same-sex relationships. Straight people have opposite-sex relationships.
Respect71 wrote:
“WTF? Two posts ago you said the baker wasn't discriminating.” Read again. The baker did NOT discriminate based on sexual orientation but on the support and participation of the institution.
They're functionally the same thing. Straight people do not have SSMs.

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) 31 min tbird19482 23,299
Event Rents {poor guest service/employee morale} 4 hr Lol 14
Wells Fargo J walking 17th and Sherman 6 hr Jay 2
Mexicans (Mar '14) 18 hr uPWR 71
News 'ER' star faces paternity suit (Jul '07) 18 hr George 6
District 2 cops 19 hr Corein 8
Beware of Remedy roofing (May '11) Sat Hammerandnails 42
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages