Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 58476 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

#3064 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Forcing a American to support and participate in an institution that they do not believe in is un-Constitutional.
But requiring businesses to sell the goods and services they purport to be in business to provide to all customers equally isn't unconstitutional.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3065 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“No, that is not what I was saying.” Then rethink your analogy.
Your poor reading comprehension is not a flaw in my analogy.
Respect71 wrote:
“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 I have a Bible that coincides with historical documents throughout human history.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?
You're mixing two different things now.

The belief that homosexuality (or same-sex marriage) is wrong, is simply a moral opinion; it is not supported by historical documents.

Secondly, historical documents, as well as archaeology, show us that the Bible is a very poor account of history and contains known fabrications and myth-making. For example, the Gospel of Luke invents a census that never happened.
Respect71 wrote:
This is based on your “secular values”? Where is your documentation to back up your claim,“It has the same benefits as straight marriages.”?
People who take part in marriage are more stable, more happy, and their children have better outcomes. This applies to both straight and gay people. What reason would it not?

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3066 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I stand for freedom…
Indeed. The freedom to discriminate against anyone at any time for any reason based on your personal religious beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
If a baker or any other vendor that sells goods and services for civil weddings doesn't "believe in" the institution of civil marriage, it appears they chose the wrong business, doesn't it? Regardless, you're simply wrong regarding the government's ability to regulate businesses and require them to sell to their goods and services to all members of the general public when their business is deemed a public accommodation. It's settled constitutional law and there aren't any automatic first amendment exemptions to ignore the law based on religious beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
Your desire to punish someone who doesn’t believe as you do is apparent.
Your defense and attempted justification of blatant discrimination is reprehensible.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3067 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
So you CAN’T post that I stated what you said I stated?
As I said, it logically follows from your assertions for a single instance of exemption from the law based on religious beliefs pertaining to a specific group of people. It's not my problem that you're too stupid to understand how the law works and can't understand the equal protection mandate of the federal constitution doesn't allow such narrowly tailored exemptions when they discriminate against a protected class of people.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.”

[QUOTE who="Respect71"]Marr iage to you is different than to others in this Country…
Civil marriage is civil marriage. It's not me that lacks an understanding of what civil marriage means legally.
Respect71 wrote:
I stand for you and those who hold and cherish marriage deeply, without fear of persecution, based on our First Amendment.
Simply being in business doesn't give the business owner the right to deem whether his customers are worthy of buying his goods and services. Business conduct is subject to government regulation.
Respect71 wrote:
You stand to punish, affectively discounting, marginalizing, and demonizing, those who don’t believe as you do and use the “law” as an excuse.
Actually, I stand for obeying the law. You stand for ignoring the law if it conflicts with one's personal religious beliefs.

All citizens have the constitutional right to petition government to redress their grievances, including disputes regarding laws they find objectionable. The baker has exercised that constitutional right through the judicial process and may continue to appeal adverse rulings all the way to the US Supreme Court if he desires. However, if SCOTUS turns down an appeal, the matter is settled based on the last ruling. Alternatively, the baker may lobby elected representatives to have the law changed. This is how our system of government works and how it was designed to work. However, none of our constitutional rights are absolute, not even freedom of religion. That's part of the price one pays living under a constitutional republic form of government.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3068 Aug 12, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what's happening, and wouldn't be true if it was.
It already happened.

It’s sad that you support such actions against a fellow American.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3069 Aug 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
But requiring businesses to sell the goods and services they purport to be in business to provide to all customers equally isn't unconstitutional.
Punishing a baker to believe the same as you or give up part of his business is.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3070 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The facts are what they are... Point to the lie.
Your lie is your assertion that the baker did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the instant case of the two gay customers that sought to purchase a wedding cake. You erroneously think that any act of selling something else to a different gay person or persons means the baker can't discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation but that's incorrect. Each interaction with a customer is independently subject to anti-discrimination law.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3071 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
It already happened.
It’s sad that you support such actions against a fellow American.
That is your misrepresentation of the situation along with your uneducated opinion on the Constitution.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3072 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
A case will go to SCOTUS and we will see.
You're certainly free to hope whatever you wish in spite of reality.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3073 Aug 12, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your poor reading comprehension is not a flaw in my analogy.
<quoted text>
You're mixing two different things now.
The belief that homosexuality (or same-sex marriage) is wrong, is simply a moral opinion; it is not supported by historical documents.
Secondly, historical documents, as well as archaeology, show us that the Bible is a very poor account of history and contains known fabrications and myth-making. For example, the Gospel of Luke invents a census that never happened.
<quoted text>
People who take part in marriage are more stable, more happy, and their children have better outcomes. This applies to both straight and gay people. What reason would it not?
“Your poor reading comprehension is not a flaw in my analogy.” It’s your thinking.

“The belief that homosexuality (or same-sex marriage) is wrong, is simply a moral opinion; it is not supported by historical documents.” It isn’t? Where is your evidence?

“Secondly, historical documents, as well as archaeology, show us that the Bible is a very poor account of history and contains known fabrications and myth-making. For example, the Gospel of Luke invents a census that never happened.” You are mistaken… But that aside… Please provide the document that makes your “secular values superior” to Christianity.

“People who take part in marriage are more stable, more happy, and their children have better outcomes. This applies to both straight and gay people. What reason would it not?” Cite your source.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3074 Aug 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. The freedom to discriminate against anyone at any time for any reason based on your personal religious beliefs.
<quoted text>
If a baker or any other vendor that sells goods and services for civil weddings doesn't "believe in" the institution of civil marriage, it appears they chose the wrong business, doesn't it? Regardless, you're simply wrong regarding the government's ability to regulate businesses and require them to sell to their goods and services to all members of the general public when their business is deemed a public accommodation. It's settled constitutional law and there aren't any automatic first amendment exemptions to ignore the law based on religious beliefs.
<quoted text>
Your defense and attempted justification of blatant discrimination is reprehensible.
It’s your blatant discrimination against the baker and his believes that is “reprehensible.”.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3075 Aug 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, it logically follows from your assertions for a single instance of exemption from the law based on religious beliefs pertaining to a specific group of people. It's not my problem that you're too stupid to understand how the law works and can't understand the equal protection mandate of the federal constitution doesn't allow such narrowly tailored exemptions when they discriminate against a protected class of people.
<quoted text>
Civil marriage is civil marriage. It's not me that lacks an understanding of what civil marriage means legally.
<quoted text>
Simply being in business doesn't give the business owner the right to deem whether his customers are worthy of buying his goods and services. Business conduct is subject to government regulation.
<quoted text>
Actually, I stand for obeying the law. You stand for ignoring the law if it conflicts with one's personal religious beliefs.
All citizens have the constitutional right to petition government to redress their grievances, including disputes regarding laws they find objectionable. The baker has exercised that constitutional right through the judicial process and may continue to appeal adverse rulings all the way to the US Supreme Court if he desires. However, if SCOTUS turns down an appeal, the matter is settled based on the last ruling. Alternatively, the baker may lobby elected representatives to have the law changed. This is how our system of government works and how it was designed to work. However, none of our constitutional rights are absolute, not even freedom of religion. That's part of the price one pays living under a constitutional republic form of government.
A case will go to SCOTUS and we will see.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3076 Aug 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lie is your assertion that the baker did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the instant case of the two gay customers that sought to purchase a wedding cake. You erroneously think that any act of selling something else to a different gay person or persons means the baker can't discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation but that's incorrect. Each interaction with a customer is independently subject to anti-discrimination law.
Nice try but the fact in the case is he serves gays and therefore discrimination is on the basis of institution and his support and participation in that institution. The LACK of a husband or a wife is the issue… NOT sex.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3077 Aug 12, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That is your misrepresentation of the situation along with your uneducated opinion on the Constitution.
You continually show your lack of understanding of history and of the Bible…. Enough said.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3078 Aug 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You're certainly free to hope whatever you wish in spite of reality.
We shall see.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3079 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You continually show your lack of understanding of history and of the Bible…. Enough said.
Of course, the bible is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You see, in order to ensure true religious freedom, the constitution first enjoins congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, because doing so is detrimental to the free exercise of all others.

The simple fact of the matter is that the baker has the right to his religious beliefs and free speech. He has the right to say that he disagrees with the union, but that doesn't give him the right to deny service. Providing the service in no way impacts his free exercise or free speech.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3080 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Your poor reading comprehension is not a flaw in my analogy.” It’s your thinking.
Your memory is poor. I made an analogy. You took something out of it that didn't exist. The error was on your part.
Respect71 wrote:
“The belief that homosexuality (or same-sex marriage) is wrong, is simply a moral opinion; it is not supported by historical documents.” It isn’t? Where is your evidence?
It's YOUR claim. Where's YOUR evidence? Tell me *how* historical documents can validate a moral opinion and then show me which ones do so.
Respect71 wrote:
“Secondly, historical documents, as well as archaeology, show us that the Bible is a very poor account of history and contains known fabrications and myth-making. For example, the Gospel of Luke invents a census that never happened.” You are mistaken…
I'm not mistaken. You don't know your Bible. The census in the Gospel of Luke never happened. The Roman Empire never did (and more importantly, never would have) ordered an Empire-wide census that required citizens to go to their birth place. All censuses occurred in the place the people were living at the time, for tax purposes.

The writer of the Gospel of Luke had to *make up* that absurd census because he didn't an excuse to place Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem.
Respect71 wrote:
“People who take part in marriage are more stable, more happy, and their children have better outcomes. This applies to both straight and gay people. What reason would it not?” Cite your source.
http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/20/marriage...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3081 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You continually show your lack of understanding of history and of the Bible…. Enough said.
My understanding of both history and the Bible far exceeds yours. I've had to teach you your own religion numerous times.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3082 Aug 12, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The simple fact of the matter is that the baker has the right to his religious beliefs and free speech. He has the right to say that he disagrees with the union, but that doesn't give him the right to deny service. Providing the service in no way impacts his free exercise or free speech.
Only a moron would believe that.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3083 Aug 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
It’s your blatant discrimination against the baker and his believes that is “reprehensible.”.
The baker isn't being discriminated against. That's just another of your lies. Being told to sell the goods he purports to be in business to sell to all members of the general public isn't discrimination. Refusing to do so is discrimination against the customers he refuses to service.

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
Islamic Cake Bakery Call 7 hr Larry the Cable Guy 2
Local Denver Street Gang Gets Exposure! (Mar '10) 7 hr Chi 325
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 16 hr tbird19482 30,204
News Denver's Brik on York and DJ's Cafe have closed 17 hr factcheck 1
News Rep. Buck Wants To STOP Settlement Of Sexual Mi... Wed surfeagle 1
Play the "end of the word" game (Jul '11) Wed Princess Hey 4,283
last post wins! (Feb '11) Dec 10 Princess Hey 26,418

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages