Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 49113 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.

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

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3044 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 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.” 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?
.......
Gay Widower Shares Heartbreaking Story Of Why He's Suing Alabama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/gay-...

The "final straw," however, was when Hard found out that his husband's death certificate read "never married." Even though the couple had legally wed in Massachusetts, Alabama did not recognize the marriage or grant Hard any legal standing over his partner's will.

(NOTE: The video is heartbreaking to watch)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3045 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“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;”.
Hebrews 13:17 ESV
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Romans 13:1-14 ESV
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Public Accommodations Discrimination
http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DORA-DCR...

Colorado Law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on certain protected classes (characteristics). Examples of prohibited discriminatory practices include: terms of service; denial of full and equal service; intimidation; failure to accommodate; access; conditions; privileges; advertising; and retaliation. A place of public accommodation can be a: bar; restaurant; financial institution; school or educational institution; health club; theater; hospital; museum or zoo; hotel or motel; public club; retail store; medical clinic; public transportation; nursing home; recreational facility or park; and library.
Colorado law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. By legal definition, sexual orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality (lesbian or gay), bisexuality, and transgender status. Transgender status means a gender indentity or gender expression that differs from societal expectations based on gender assigned at birth.
**********
You and the baker have dodged this issue. Why are you excusing him from ignoring his articles of faith?

You also have never explained why they were selling to gays and lesbians in the first place if they object to gays and lesbians because of religious reasons.

You have also failed to show why religion freedom can't be used to justify ignoring any law a person wishes.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3046 Aug 11, 2014
Part 1 of 2
Respect71 wrote:
Because of the institution.
The institution in question is civil marriage, not religious marriage.
Respect71 wrote:
All of which where husband and wife.
SCOTUS has never ruled the fundamental right of marriage has been limited to only husband/wife combinations. The legal accomplishment of marriage is to establish kinship between previously unrelated parties. This occurs regardless of the sex of the parties. Requiring marriage to be between one man and one woman is a restriction fundamentally no different than requiring whites to marry only whites.
Respect71 wrote:
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.[QUOTE who="Respect71"]
The institution is civil marriage. Period. Whether the ability to exercise the fundamental right of marriage is restricted based on race or sex, they are both still restrictions subject to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the constitution. If certain Christians don't believe in that institution, then they shouldn't be selling wedding goods/services to anyone, not just gays.

[QUOTE who="Respect71"]AGAI N, 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.
Again, you're a liar. The baker sold cakes for the institution of marriage. What he would do is sell wedding cakes to gays. That sexual orientation discrimination, pure and simple.
Respect71 wrote:
“gay marriage”
There is no such thing under the law. The law simply recognizes marriage without any descriptors or qualifiers.
Respect71 wrote:
The baker chooses to support and participate in the institution of marriage that is composed of a husband and wife...
The baker isn't allowed that choice when acting as a public accommodation in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class.
Respect71 wrote:
He serves gays.
Partial compliance with the law doesn't negate the time he refuses to comply with the law.
Respect71 wrote:
Keep spinning.
Keep lying.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3047 Aug 11, 2014
Part 2 of 2
Respect71 wrote:
The First Amendment.
The First Amendment.
Still non-responsive. I've given you how SCOTUS has applied the first amendment relative to the issue at hand. The words "the first amendment" are not a magic incantation that refute much less rebut actual case law.

Try again.
Respect71 wrote:
“Name calling suggests you have no other argument to back up your stand
On the contrary, using words that accurately describe you isn't name calling. And I have given arguments; you ignore them with non-responsive answers or simply whine to deflect from the fact you can't refute them.
Respect71 wrote:
and shows that you like government punishing Americans for their religious beliefs just because they don’t like them and how they believe.
On the contrary, I expect the government to punish lawbreakers, which is exactly what the baker did: break the law. You stupidly think religious beliefs exempt people from any laws they don't like. That's not how the first amendment works.
Respect71 wrote:
Neither is purchasing a wedding cake.
Under anti-discrimination laws, purchasing goods and services from a public accommodation is deemed a state granted civil right of members of the general public.
Respect71 wrote:
You’re using the law as an excuse to punish those you hate.
I don't hate bakers or Christians. I simply expect them to follow the same laws that apply to all citizens. But thanks for lying about me.
Respect71 wrote:
Please cite the post where I state that.
It logically follows from your assertion that Christians should be able to refuse service to people based on their religious beliefs. Just because you stupidly think it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable to carve out marriage and gays as the only religious belief exception, it's not feasible under the law to do so because it violates both first amendment freedom of religion and the equal protection mandate of the US constitution.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3048 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Again the facts of the case: He served gays... He reserved wedding cakes for husbands and wives because of his belief...
Wrong. The fact of this case is the baker refused to sell a wedding cake to two gay customers. That fact violates anti-discrmination law in Colorado applicable to public accommodations of which the baker's business is considered. It's irrelevant that the baker would not discriminate against gays in every instance of their attempts to buy baked goods from him. The law doesn't give good behavior credit for acts of compliance with the law that can be used to offset the instances of refusal to comply with the law.

Educate yourself and stop lying.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3049 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
[trimmed for emphasis]

A case will go to SCOTUS and we will see.
Don't hold your breath. SCOTUS has already turned down the appeal of a wedding photographer in New Mexico that refused to provide wedding photography services to a gay couple. The facts of the case and the arguments were virtually identical except it involved a photographer rather than a baker.

In some respects the photographer's case could be viewed as stronger since the photographer must actually be present at the wedding ceremony and/or reception where baker doesn't. And yet the appeal was still turned down. And guess, what? The New Mexico supreme Court applied the same SCOTUS precedents I explained to you in other posts that you've ignored because you simply can't or refuse to understand the law. That's likely why SCOTUS turned down the appeal; there was no ambiguity in actual case law and precedent nor was it misapplied in the instant case.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3050 Aug 11, 2014
Respect71 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.” 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?
.......
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Matthew 5:11

1 Peter 4:15-16King James Version (KJV)
15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.

16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 (NIV)
4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Colossians 1:16
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3051 Aug 11, 2014
CO bans discrimination in public accommodations due to religious views. And because of the sex of the customers. And because of the sexual orientation of the customer.

Now about what THE BIBLE says:

Romans 13:1-14 ESV

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

'Respect71' seems to feel that religious discrimination is somehow legal.

'Respect71' seems to feel that religious discrimination is justified.

So much for religious "freedom".

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3052 Aug 12, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Forcing a American to support and participate in an institution that they do not believe in is un-Constitutional.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3053 Aug 12, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not what I was saying.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
“No, that is not what I was saying.” Then rethink your analogy.

“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.” I have a Bible that coincides with historical documents throughout human history. Where do you beliefs come from?

“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.” This is based on your “secular values”? Where is your documentation to back up your claim,“It has the same benefits as straight marriages.”?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3054 Aug 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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
Please post the text of said law.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3055 Aug 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Gay Widower Shares Heartbreaking Story Of Why He's Suing Alabama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/gay-...
The "final straw," however, was when Hard found out that his husband's death certificate read "never married." Even though the couple had legally wed in Massachusetts, Alabama did not recognize the marriage or grant Hard any legal standing over his partner's will.
(NOTE: The video is heartbreaking to watch)
It really is sad… It truly puts the baker case into perspective doesn’t it… A wedding cake is nothing compared to being with your loved one.

But I think we are really getting the picture that it’s not about the non-sale of a wedding cake, rather it’s about forcing another to believe the institution of “gay marriage” or put them out of business.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3056 Aug 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Hebrews 13:17 ESV
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Romans 13:1-14 ESV
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
Public Accommodations Discrimination
hased on actual or perceived sexual orientation. By legal definition, sexual orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality (lesbian or gay), bisexuality, and transgender status. Transgender status means a gender indentity or gender expression that differs from societal expectations based on gender assigned at birth.
**********
You and the baker have dodged this issue. Why are you excusing him from ignoring his articles of faith?
You also have never explained why they were selling to gays and lesbians in the first place if they object to gays and lesbians because of religious reasons.
You have also failed to show why religion freedom can't be used to justify ignoring any law a person wishes.
“You and the baker have dodged this issue. Why are you excusing him from ignoring his articles of faith?” While I appreciate your posting of scripture I don’t appreciate your attempt to make it mean something that it doesn’t. Hebrews 13:17 is reminding Christians to follow those leaders of faith at a time when the world was flipped upside down and old faith leaders were shaken… While you attempt to make it look as though Christians are to obey Colorado law and their government. Likewise you cite Romans 13:1-14, stop and 5 and act as though a Christians is then subject to government above God at God’s command… Very dishonest. We are not submissive to governments if we are asked to violate a command of God, if we are asked to commit an immoral or unethical act, if we are asked to go against his/her conscience. So truthfully it is you who is ignorant of the “articles of faith”.

“You also have never explained why they were selling to gays and lesbians in the first place if they object to gays and lesbians because of religious reasons.” The baker is not objecting to gays and lesbians. He sells baked goods to gays and lesbians all the time. He choses not to support and participate in the institution of “gay marriage” by using his talents, because it goes against what he believes (his conscience).

“You have also failed to show why religion freedom can't be used to justify ignoring any law a person wishes.” Because of Romans 13… And because of anything that may infringe upon the liberties of other Americans… In this case it was the baker’s liberty that was removed and the government’s failure to preserve that liberty.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3057 Aug 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
<quoted text>
The institution in question is civil marriage, not religious marriage.
<quoted text>
SCOTUS has never ruled the fundamental right of marriage has been limited to only husband/wife combinations. The legal accomplishment of marriage is to establish kinship between previously unrelated parties. This occurs regardless of the sex of the parties. Requiring marriage to be between one man and one woman is a restriction fundamentally no different than requiring whites to marry only whites.
<quoted text>
Again, you're a liar. The baker sold cakes for the institution of marriage. What he would do is sell wedding cakes to gays. That sexual orientation discrimination, pure and simple.
<quoted text>
There is no such thing under the law. The law simply recognizes marriage without any descriptors or qualifiers.
<quoted text>
The baker isn't allowed that choice when acting as a public accommodation in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class.
<quoted text>
Partial compliance with the law doesn't negate the time he refuses to comply with the law.
<quoted text>
Keep lying.
I stand for freedom… It is not okay for government to force an Americans to use his talents to support and participate in a institution that he doesn’t believe in the same as you, because of our First Amendment.

Your desire to punish someone who doesn’t believe as you do is apparent.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3058 Aug 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
<quoted text>
Still non-responsive. I've given you how SCOTUS has applied the first amendment relative to the issue at hand. The words "the first amendment" are not a magic incantation that refute much less rebut actual case law.
Try again.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, using words that accurately describe you isn't name calling. And I have given arguments; you ignore them with non-responsive answers or simply whine to deflect from the fact you can't refute them.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, I expect the government to punish lawbreakers, which is exactly what the baker did: break the law. You stupidly think religious beliefs exempt people from any laws they don't like. That's not how the first amendment works.
<quoted text>
Under anti-discrimination laws, purchasing goods and services from a public accommodation is deemed a state granted civil right of members of the general public.
<quoted text>
I don't hate bakers or Christians. I simply expect them to follow the same laws that apply to all citizens. But thanks for lying about me.
<quoted text>
It logically follows from your assertion that Christians should be able to refuse service to people based on their religious beliefs. Just because you stupidly think it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable to carve out marriage and gays as the only religious belief exception, it's not feasible under the law to do so because it violates both first amendment freedom of religion and the equal protection mandate of the US constitution.
“It logically follows from your assertion that Christians should be able to refuse service to people based on their religious beliefs.” So you CAN’T post that I stated what you said I stated?

“Just because you stupidly think it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable to carve out marriage and gays as the only religious belief exception, it's not feasible under the law to do so because it violates both first amendment freedom of religion and the equal protection mandate of the US constitution.” Marriage to you is different than to others in this Country… I stand for you and those who hold and cherish marriage deeply, without fear of persecution, based on our First Amendment. You stand to punish, affectively discounting, marginalizing, and demonizing, those who don’t believe as you do and use the “law” as an excuse.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3059 Aug 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The fact of this case is the baker refused to sell a wedding cake to two gay customers. That fact violates anti-discrmination law in Colorado applicable to public accommodations of which the baker's business is considered. It's irrelevant that the baker would not discriminate against gays in every instance of their attempts to buy baked goods from him. The law doesn't give good behavior credit for acts of compliance with the law that can be used to offset the instances of refusal to comply with the law.
Educate yourself and stop lying.
The facts are what they are... Point to the lie.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3060 Aug 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't hold your breath. SCOTUS has already turned down the appeal of a wedding photographer in New Mexico that refused to provide wedding photography services to a gay couple. The facts of the case and the arguments were virtually identical except it involved a photographer rather than a baker.
In some respects the photographer's case could be viewed as stronger since the photographer must actually be present at the wedding ceremony and/or reception where baker doesn't. And yet the appeal was still turned down. And guess, what? The New Mexico supreme Court applied the same SCOTUS precedents I explained to you in other posts that you've ignored because you simply can't or refuse to understand the law. That's likely why SCOTUS turned down the appeal; there was no ambiguity in actual case law and precedent nor was it misapplied in the instant case.
A case will go to SCOTUS and we will see.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3061 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
LOL... You mean like the IRS... There’s a whole other Oprah!
Sorry, kiddo. The IRS administers tax law, it isn't a business that provides a service. Do try to keep up.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
Sorry, Respect, that argument has failed both in court as well as on appeal. Providing a service for someone with differing views in no way infringes upon free speech.
Respect71 wrote:
First you will need to show how the NON SALE of a wedding cake is “thrust[ing] his views onto others,”.
Simple, it is an illegal denial of service on the basis of sexual orientation.
The reality remains that he broke the law.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
No one is forcing him to marry someone of the same sex, or to endorse such a union. He is being asked to provide the same service for this couple that he would for any other.
Respect71 wrote:
A case will go to SCOTUS and we will see.
And when one does, your side will lose again. The US Supreme Court has already refused to hear the Elaine photography case, and that says something about their disposition on the matter.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3062 Aug 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
CO bans discrimination in public accommodations due to religious views. And because of the sex of the customers. And because of the sexual orientation of the customer.
Now about what THE BIBLE says:
Romans 13:1-14 ESV
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
'Respect71' seems to feel that religious discrimination is somehow legal.
'Respect71' seems to feel that religious discrimination is justified.
So much for religious "freedom".
Read above

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
Male on Female Facesitting topix? (Nov '16) 18 hr JGJ92 12
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) Sat tbird19482 28,343
Roosters Fri zooalogy 1
Tar in Denver May 18 Haaalllpppp 4
Tar help May 18 Haaalllpppp 1
last post wins! (Feb '11) May 18 Princess Hey 26,380
1987 americas most wanted will now go into isra... May 17 EARTHQUAKE 1

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages