Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 58897 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.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3024 Aug 7, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The First Amendment of the Constitution.
Non-responsive and fails to answer the question. Try again:

Why should only a religious belief regarding who should be able to marry justify exemption from compliance with a law to the exclusion of other religious beliefs regarding marriage?
Respect71 wrote:
Skin color and the institution of marriage are two very different things.
No they're not. Allowable combinations of "skin color" were an integral part of the marriage laws of almost all states, many from before independence was declared. Almost ⅓ of the states still had anti-miscegegation laws on the books when SCOTUS declared them unconstitutional in 1967.

You are both uneducated and a liar.
Respect71 wrote:
“No. AGAIN, we are NOT discussing skin color
There is no effective difference between allowing discrimination against gays based on religious beliefs and discrimination against blacks based on religious beliefs. Religious beliefs were used to justify both slavery and segregation against blacks. You don't wish to acknowledge that fact because it not only undermines your argument, it also makes clear how immoral your argument really is.
Respect71 wrote:
we are talking about the government forcing a baker to support and participate in a institution that he doesn’t believe in,“gay marriage”.
So now you claim the baker doesn't believe in the institution of marriage? The fact he was willing to sell wedding cakes to opposite sex couples puts that to the lie.
Respect71 wrote:
Yet, the First Amendment is.
Non-responsive and fails to address the assertion. Try again:

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.
Respect71 wrote:
Because of the First Amendment and the nature of THIS case the baker can be who he is.
Non-responsive and fails to address the assertion. Try again:

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.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
You have no understanding of the constitution or constitutional law. As a result, your ignorance makes you a liar.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
If one doesn't wish to comply with applicable laws and business regulations, one is not forced to own or run a business. Owning or running a business is a personal choice, not a constitutional right.
Respect71 wrote:
Because of the First Amendment of our Constitution
So you think Catholics should be allowed to discriminate against Protestants or Jews or Muslims. Got it.
Respect71 wrote:
… I give you credit for being consistent.
That's what happens when one's position is based on logic and knowledge rather than ignorance and emotion.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
It's sad that you think Christians are above the law and should be able to discriminate against anyone anytime anywhere for any reason.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3025 Aug 7, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again.... The baker is not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but the support and the participation of the institution.
On the contrary, the baker discriminated against the couple because they were gay. It had nothing to do with the "institution" of marriage since the baker was perfectly willing to bake wedding cakes; he just wouldn't sell them to certain customers based on their sexual orientation.

Stop lying.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3026 Aug 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
In other words, support and participate in the institution of “gay marriage” or be punished.
Nope, just to provide the same service to anyone who seeks it. Providing a service for someone with differing religious, political, or social views in no way endangers any of the rights of the proprietor. Only a fool would argue to the contrary.
Respect71 wrote:
Again, your ideals of what he should believe forced him out of a position… The sad thing is you know this to be true yet continue to spew the lie.
No, my ideals simply support the elective action of an individual who took responsibility for their own actions, and stepped aside rather than allow their personal political views to negatively impact the company they led.
Respect71 wrote:
You support punishment of those who don’t believe the same as you.
No, I don't. You are the one making that argument, when you argue that the baker should be able to thrust his views onto others, or provide service only to those patrons whose views conform to his own.
Respect71 wrote:
Which he didn’t based on the facts… He discriminated against the INSTITUTION of which he doesn’t believe.
Actually, he did. The Colorado court correctly pointed out that "The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation."
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...

The reality remains that if the baker objects to same sex marriage, he is free not to marry someone of the same sex. Providing a service to someone who does marry another of the same sex in no way infringes upon the baker's rights.

Your argument has already lost in multiple courts, and in multiple appeals.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3027 Aug 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Stop avoiding the question.
“How did practicing slavery increase that understanding? Please be specific.”
“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.” Sure it’s your choice… Just as it’s your choice to believe your “secular values” where “They don't "come" from anywhere;”.

“How did practicing slavery increase that understanding? Please be specific.” If you have a hard time understanding the Leviticus, and the relationships God asks of His people then you might try reading more than one verse.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3028 Aug 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The relationship and the sexual orientation are linked. Gay people have same-sex relationships. Straight people have opposite-sex relationships.
<quoted text>
They're functionally the same thing. Straight people do not have SSMs.
“The relationship and the sexual orientation are linked. Gay people have same-sex relationships. Straight people have opposite-sex relationships.” And the baker served gay people baked goods… That’s the fact of the case. I didn’t want to use his talents to support and participate in the institution of “gay marriage”.

“They're functionally the same thing.” What is?
“Straight people do not have SSMs.” Correct which is why the baker told them he reserved the wedding cake for husband and wife couples.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3029 Aug 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No, neither is a participant. Is a reporter who covers a war a participant in the war? No, they're reporting it. A photography is the same.
<quoted text>
Yeah, it's called an analogy. Look it up.
<quoted text>
Of course I can. And people DID for hundreds of years. In this country.
You're being blatantly dishonest.
<quoted text>
Ok, here's evidence: I declare that my religion states that drinking coffee is an institution only for German people. Therefore, any potential customer who comes into my coffee shop who is not German, I will refuse to provide service for.
There you go. I just declared something to be a religious institution. You cannot declare that your religion is any more legitimate than my religion: they're both simply beliefs.
<quoted text>
False. There are marriages between two men and two women right now. Many of them. In many countries.
At one point in history, marriage didn't require the consent of the woman. The man simply purchased her and she became his wife. At some point, people CHANGED that. Did the people who viewed women as property declare "all of human history marriage hasn't required consent of the women"? Was that a good argument?
<quoted text>
That marriage should only be between men and women has no evidence or facts to support it either; it's merely an OPINION. I can hold a different OPINION just as easily.
“No, neither is a participant. Is a reporter who covers a war a participant in the war? No, they're reporting it. A photography is the same.” Reporters are willing participants the war event… MANY reports choose not to go and report on war… Should our government force them to?
You are mistaken in your assertion because not only are the baker and photographer supporting and participating in the event they are being paid to provide literally memories of their event.

“Yeah, it's called an analogy. Look it up.” Truthfully it’s called irrelevant.
“Of course I can. And people DID for hundreds of years. In this country.
You're being blatantly dishonest.” I’m not the one comparing skin color to the institution of marriage.

“Ok, here's evidence: I declare that my religion states that drinking coffee is an institution only for German people. Therefore, any potential customer who comes into my coffee shop who is not German, I will refuse to provide service for.” What long standing document supports this? Your “secular values” where “They don't "come" from anywhere;”.?

“False. There are marriages between two men and two women right now. Many of them. In many countries.” LOL before NOW…

“At one point in history, marriage didn't require the consent of the woman. The man simply purchased her and she became his wife. At some point, people CHANGED that.” Christians did.
“Did the people who viewed women as property declare "all of human history marriage hasn't required consent of the women"? Was that a good argument?” No.

“That marriage should only be between men and women has no evidence or facts to support it either; it's merely an OPINION. I can hold a different OPINION just as easily” Society would die out if marriage were ONLY between same sexes… Yes you can have your opinion… But you cannot ask the government to force your onion upon others by punishing a baker or photographer for reserving his talents for and husband and wife.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3030 Aug 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to: you already admitted that their base value was love, which is a secular value.
<quoted text>
The 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause makes the country explicitly secular.
<quoted text>
...that's not what secular means.
The US Constitution's ideas have no religious basis and the government was designed to separate religion from government functionality. We're a secular nation.
“I don't need to: you already admitted that their base value was love, which is a secular value.” I have the Bible that says love is held as a value, and in fact God is love. Please produce your time honored document that states “love” is a “secular value”.

“The 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause makes the country explicitly secular.” The first amendment is there to protect people of religion from people like you who believe their “secular values” where “They don't "come" from anywhere;” are “superior” to those who hold religious beliefs.

“...that's not what secular means.” sec·u·lar
&#712;seky&#601;l& #601;r/
adjective
adjective: secular
&#8232;denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."secular buildings"
But please enlighten us!!!

“The US Constitution's ideas have no religious basis and the government was designed to separate religion from government functionality. We're a secular nation.” Not if our rights come from a creator. Otherwise “They don't "come" from anywhere;”.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3031 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Sure it’s your choice… Just as it’s your choice to believe your “secular values” where “They don't "come" from anywhere;”.
lol

You got smoked again, so you return to your stupid talking point.
Respect71 wrote:
If you have a hard time understanding the Leviticus, and the relationships God asks of His people then you might try reading more than one verse.
I'm not having a hard time. You're having the hard time because you can't answer the question:

How did practicing slavery increase that understanding? Please be specific.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3032 Aug 11, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>n.
“Non-responsive and fails to answer the question. Try again:

Why should only a religious belief regarding who should be able to marry justify exemption from compliance with a law to the exclusion of other religious beliefs regarding marriage?” Because of the institution.

“No they're not. Allowable combinations of "skin color" were an integral part of the marriage laws of almost all states, many from before independence was declared. Almost &#8531; of the states still had anti-miscegegation laws on the books when SCOTUS declared them unconstitutional in 1967.” All of which where husband and wife.

“You are both uneducated and a liar.” You are by compairing skin color to an institution of which you desire to force Americans to support and participate in when you know many don’t believe the same as you.

“There is no effective difference between allowing discrimination against gays “ AGAIN, the baker did NOT discriminate because they were gay... He discriminated on the basis of the institution of marriage of which he didn’t want to use his talents to support and participate in.

“based on religious beliefs and discrimination against blacks based on religious beliefs. Religious beliefs were used to justify both slavery and segregation against blacks. You don't wish to acknowledge that fact because it not only undermines your argument, it also makes clear how immoral your argument really is.” The fact you try to marginalize and demonize a follow American who doesn’t believe the same as you shows how immoral your argument is.

“So now you claim the baker doesn't believe in the institution of marriage?”“gay marriage”... The baker chooses to support and participate in the institution of marriage that is composed of a husband and wife... He serves gays. Keep spinning.

“Non-responsive and fails to address the assertion. Try again:

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.” The First Amendment.
“Non-responsive and fails to address the assertion. Try again:

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.”
The First Amendment.
“You have no understanding of the constitution or constitutional law. As a result, your ignorance makes you a liar.” Name calling suggests you have no other argument to back up your stand, and shows that you like government punishing Americans for their religious beliefs just because they don’t like them and how they believe.

“If one doesn't wish to comply with applicable laws and business regulations, one is not forced to own or run a business. Owning or running a business is a personal choice, not a constitutional right.” Neither is purchasing a wedding cake. You’re using the law as an excuse to punish those you hate.

“So you think Catholics should be allowed to discriminate against Protestants or Jews or Muslims. Got it.”

“That's what happens when one's position is based on logic and knowledge rather than ignorance and emotion.”

“It's sad that you think Christians are above the law and should be able to discriminate against anyone anytime anywhere for any reason.” Please cite the post where I state that.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3033 Aug 11, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, the baker discriminated against the couple because they were gay. It had nothing to do with the "institution" of marriage since the baker was perfectly willing to bake wedding cakes; he just wouldn't sell them to certain customers based on their sexual orientation.
Stop lying.
“On the contrary, the baker discriminated against the couple because they were gay. It had nothing to do with the "institution" of marriage since the baker was perfectly willing to bake wedding cakes; he just wouldn't sell them to certain customers based on their sexual orientation.” Again the facts of the case: He served gays... He reserved wedding cakes for husbands and wives because of his belief...

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3034 Aug 11, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just to provide the same service to anyone who seeks it. Providing a service for someone with differing religious, political, or social views in no way endangers any of the rights of the proprietor. Only a fool would argue to the contrary.
<quoted text>
No, my ideals simply support the elective action of an individual who took responsibility for their own actions, and stepped aside rather than allow their personal political views to negatively impact the company they led.
<quoted text>
No, I don't. You are the one making that argument, when you argue that the baker should be able to thrust his views onto others, or provide service only to those patrons whose views conform to his own.
<quoted text>
Actually, he did. The Colorado court correctly pointed out that "The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation."
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
The reality remains that if the baker objects to same sex marriage, he is free not to marry someone of the same sex. Providing a service to someone who does marry another of the same sex in no way infringes upon the baker's rights.
Your argument has already lost in multiple courts, and in multiple appeals.
“Nope, just to provide the same service to anyone who seeks it. Providing a service for someone with differing religious, political, or social views in no way endangers any of the rights of the proprietor. Only a fool would argue to the contrary.” LOL... You mean like the IRS... There’s a whole other Oprah!
Forcing an American to use their talent to support and participate in a institution they don’t believe in is un-constitutional, based on the First amendment.

“No, I don't. You are the one making that argument, when you argue that the baker should be able to thrust his views onto others,” First you will need to show how the NON SALE of a wedding cake is “thrust[ing] his views onto others,”.

“Actually, he did. The Colorado court correctly pointed out that "The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation."
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse ...

The reality remains that if the baker objects to same sex marriage, he is free not to marry someone of the same sex. Providing a service to someone who does marry another of the same sex in no way infringes upon the baker's rights.

Your argument has already lost in multiple courts, and in multiple appeals.” A case will go to SCOTUS and we will see.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3035 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“The relationship and the sexual orientation are linked. Gay people have same-sex relationships. Straight people have opposite-sex relationships.” And the baker served gay people baked goods… That’s the fact of the case. I didn’t want to use his talents to support and participate in the institution of “gay marriage”.
Just because you don't discriminate in one instance, doesn't mean that discriminating in another instance is nullified.
Respect71 wrote:
“They're functionally the same thing.” What is?
Sexual orientation and the people involved in SSM.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3036 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“No, neither is a participant. Is a reporter who covers a war a participant in the war? No, they're reporting it. A photography is the same.” Reporters are willing participants the war event… MANY reports choose not to go and report on war… Should our government force them to?
If they choose not to go, they can be fired by their employer. Likewise, if businesses choose not to obey the laws, they can lose their business licenses provided by the government.
Respect71 wrote:
“Ok, here's evidence: I declare that my religion states that drinking coffee is an institution only for German people. Therefore, any potential customer who comes into my coffee shop who is not German, I will refuse to provide service for.” What long standing document supports this? Your “secular values” where “They don't "come" from anywhere;”.?
Excuse me? Are you saying that 1st Amendment religious rights only count if you have a "long standing document"? What is the required age of the document?
Respect71 wrote:
“False. There are marriages between two men and two women right now. Many of them. In many countries.” LOL before NOW
That is before now.
Respect71 wrote:
“At one point in history, marriage didn't require the consent of the woman. The man simply purchased her and she became his wife. At some point, people CHANGED that.” Christians did.
Why? Christianity doesn't require that. The god of the Bible doesn't require that. The god of the Bible told the Hebrews they could CAPTURE women as brides. That's rape.
Respect71 wrote:
Society would die out if marriage were ONLY between same sexes
1) No, it wouldn't. People reproduce whether or not marriage exists in any form.
2) There is no scenario in which 100% of the population would be gay.

You might as well say that we should ban people from being celibate priests and nuns, because if 100% of people became priests and nuns, society would die out.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3037 Aug 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
lol
You got smoked again, so you return to your stupid talking point.
<quoted text>
I'm not having a hard time. You're having the hard time because you can't answer the question:
How did practicing slavery increase that understanding? Please be specific.
“You got smoked again, so you return to your stupid talking point.” Then where do you “secular values” come from? Point to the source?

“I'm not having a hard time. You're having the hard time because you can't answer the question:

How did practicing slavery increase that understanding? Please be specific.” Relationship... What service means at both ends... I’ve told you this before and you then choose to ignore your “secular value” of knowledge.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3038 Aug 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you don't discriminate in one instance, doesn't mean that discriminating in another instance is nullified.
<quoted text>
Sexual orientation and the people involved in SSM.
When the government forces an American to do so or get out of business....

Yet he sold everything else to gays and you want to punish him for something he wouldn’t support or participate in.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3039 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“You got smoked again, so you return to your stupid talking point.” Then where do you “secular values” come from? Point to the source?
That post had nothing to do with secular values.
Respect71 wrote:
How did practicing slavery increase that understanding? Please be specific.” Relationship... What service means at both ends... I’ve told you this before and you then choose to ignore your “secular value” of knowledge.
Ooooh, that's actually an answer!

Ok, so God wanted the Hebrews to know what it was like to be masters, so they could better understand God being their master. Got it. So, owning slaves is a good thing then.

Why don't you own slaves?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3040 Aug 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
If they choose not to go, they can be fired by their employer. Likewise, if businesses choose not to obey the laws, they can lose their business licenses provided by the government.
<quoted text>
Excuse me? Are you saying that 1st Amendment religious rights only count if you have a "long standing document"? What is the required age of the document?
<quoted text>
That is before now.
<quoted text>
Why? Christianity doesn't require that. The god of the Bible doesn't require that. The god of the Bible told the Hebrews they could CAPTURE women as brides. That's rape.
<quoted text>
1) No, it wouldn't. People reproduce whether or not marriage exists in any form.
2) There is no scenario in which 100% of the population would be gay.
You might as well say that we should ban people from being celibate priests and nuns, because if 100% of people became priests and nuns, society would die out.
“If they choose not to go, they can be fired by their employer. Likewise, if businesses choose not to obey the laws, they can lose their business licenses provided by the government.” SO you’re saying it should be LAW to force reporters into war zones? You mat need to rethink your analogy.

“Excuse me?” You bet!

“Are you saying that 1st Amendment religious rights only count if you have a "long standing document"? What is the required age of the document?” I’m saying pulling things out of your backside and claiming valid religion is a poor attempt to win an argument.

“That is before now.” So based on your “secular values” why is “gay marriage” a good thing NOW as apposed to all the rest of human history?

.......
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3041 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
When the government forces an American to do so or get out of business....
The government requires many things of business.

The baker is also forced to keep a clean kitchen, make sure his working environment is not hazardous, and pay a minimum wage to his employees, among other things.

Do you think they should be able to get out of these laws too, if their religious says they should?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3042 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“If they choose not to go, they can be fired by their employer. Likewise, if businesses choose not to obey the laws, they can lose their business licenses provided by the government.” SO you’re saying it should be LAW to force reporters into war zones? You mat need to rethink your analogy.
No, that is not what I was saying.
Respect71 wrote:
“Are you saying that 1st Amendment religious rights only count if you have a "long standing document"? What is the required age of the document?” I’m saying pulling things out of your backside and claiming valid religion is a poor attempt to win an argument.
All religions are pulled out of someone's backside.

You have no way of showing that your beliefs are any more valid than my beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
So based on your “secular values” why is “gay marriage” a good thing NOW as apposed to all the rest of human history?
The only reason gay marriage wasn't allowed in the past is due to religion-based anti-gay bigotry.

Gay marriage is a good thing because it improves the lives of the people who are in it, and any children they have. It has the same benefits as straight marriages.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3043 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“No, neither is a participant. Is a reporter who covers a war a participant in the war? No, they're reporting it. A photography is the same.” Reporters are willing participants the war event… MANY reports choose not to go and report on war… Should our government force them to?
You are mistaken in your assertion because not only are the baker and photographer supporting and participating in the event they are being paid to provide literally memories of their event.
“Yeah, it's called an analogy. Look it up.” Truthfully it’s called irrelevant.
“Of course I can. And people DID for hundreds of years. In this country.
You're being blatantly dishonest.” I’m not the one comparing skin color to the institution of marriage.
“Ok, here's evidence: I declare that my religion states that drinking coffee is an institution only for German people. Therefore, any potential customer who comes into my coffee shop who is not German, I will refuse to provide service for.” What long standing document supports this? Your “secular values” where “They don't "come" from anywhere;”.?
“False. There are marriages between two men and two women right now. Many of them. In many countries.” LOL before NOW…
“At one point in history, marriage didn't require the consent of the woman. The man simply purchased her and she became his wife. At some point, people CHANGED that.” Christians did.
“Did the people who viewed women as property declare "all of human history marriage hasn't required consent of the women"? Was that a good argument?” No.
“That marriage should only be between men and women has no evidence or facts to support it either; it's merely an OPINION. I can hold a different OPINION just as easily” Society would die out if marriage were ONLY between same sexes… Yes you can have your opinion… But you cannot ask the government to force your onion upon others by punishing a baker or photographer for reserving his talents for and husband and wife.
LMAO SPARE ME THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CRAP! FACT: Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings 7/9/2013

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
Play the "end of the word" game (Jul '11) 9 hr responsibility 4,313
News "Ima Shoot Up Bear Creek:" At Least 5 Post-Park... 16 hr bloodfleshbones 1
News Denver shatters record low temperature for firs... Wed surfeagleOrg 1
News Man fatally stabs pit bull to stop dog fight (Aug '07) Wed Oh Boy 518
Yvonne Anderson of Ya Ya Services, Inc. Feb 19 Pissed customer 2
The horrible murder of Brandy Duvall. (Aug '11) Feb 17 bloodfleshbones 64
Male on Female Facesitting topix? (Nov '16) Feb 17 Girl-Seat_Lover 49

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages