Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 3,473

Engaged gay couple Dave Mullins, second from left, and Charlie Craig, left, were joined by a small group of supporters in Lakewood on Aug. 4, 2012 to protest and boycott the Masterpiece Cakeshop at 3355 S. Wadsworth Blvd. The couple went to the cake shop, and the owner turned the couple away saying he would not make them a rainbow-themed wedding ... (more)

Full Story

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3098 Aug 13, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The law forces him neither to support nor participate, they do require him to provide the same service he would provide anyone else, and doing so in no way violates his rights.
Grow up.
By providing the service he has to support and participate in a institution that he doesn’t believe in… In doing so it violates his First Amendment right of free exercise.

I understand this is difficult for you to understand because you believe that “gay marriage” needs to be accepted by all or face government punishment.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3099 Aug 13, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
So therefore documenting that other people share the same opinion doesn't validate that opinion.
<quoted text>
Richard Carrier or Thomas Thompson, to start.
<quoted text>
Making a reference to a book is not a refutation. Either explain what the book says or provide a link which can be viewed.
<quoted text>
No, because I can give you facts (like the census of Luke being a lie) that contradict your religion.
<quoted text>
Post 3065, I asked you why those benefits would not be applicable to gay people. You had no answer.
All you can do it repeat your idiotic talking point.
“So therefore documenting that other people share the same opinion doesn't validate that opinion.” It does, actually, and just because your opinion is opposite doesn’t invalidate yours either… But juts because you hold a different opinion doesn’t mean the government can punish those who don’t believe the same as you.

“Richard Carrier or Thomas Thompson, to start.”
“Making a reference to a book is not a refutation. Either explain what the book says or provide a link which can be viewed.” What did you just do above? If you value knowledge I trust that you will look it up for yourself.

“No, because I can give you facts (like the census of Luke being a lie) that contradict your religion.” Yet you have no facts to support what you believe.

“Post 3065, I asked you why those benefits would not be applicable to gay people. You had no answer.

All you can do it repeat your idiotic talking point.” I concede to your “benefits would be applicable to gay people” So therefore what?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3100 Aug 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
By providing the service he has to support and participate in a institution that he doesn’t believe in… In doing so it violates his First Amendment right of free exercise.
Sorry, kiddo, it's baking a cake, it isn't writing an endorsement.
Respect71 wrote:
I understand this is difficult for you to understand because you believe that “gay marriage” needs to be accepted by all or face government punishment.
No, moron, discrimination is difficult to accept because it is illegal, and for good reason.

Grow up.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3101 Aug 13, 2014
lides wrote:
Sorry, kiddo, it's baking a cake, it isn't writing an endorsement.
He could have just baked and frosted a cake. Would that have been enough?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3102 Aug 13, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
He could have just baked and frosted a cake. Would that have been enough?
If he offers goods/services X, Y, and Z to one customer, he should offer goods/services X, Y, and Z to any customer.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3103 Aug 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Who received the punishment? It wasn’t the gay couple.
The gay couple didn't break the law; why would they be punished? People who break the law (like the baker) are the ones who are usually punished. And what was his actual punishment? Being told to sell wedding cakes to all members of the general public, including gays, that wanted to purchase them. He also had to provide diversity training to his staff and file reports. There are far worse punishments meted out to lawbreakers than that.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3104 Aug 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
A case will go to SCOTUS and we will see.
We already see you're intellectually retarded by repetitively posting the same unresponsive phrase that doesn't actually address the replies made to you.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3106 Aug 15, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, it's baking a cake, it isn't writing an endorsement.
<quoted text>
No, moron, discrimination is difficult to accept because it is illegal, and for good reason.
Grow up.
“Sorry, kiddo, it's baking a cake, it isn't writing an endorsement.” No but planning, baking, delivering and setting up a WEDDING CAKE is a support and participation in the event of the institution of “gay marriage”

“No, moron, discrimination is difficult to accept because it is illegal, and for good reason.

Grow up.” Right… ANY American who doesn’t support and participate in “gay marriage” should go to jail or be put out of business… Because of your discrimination against them of what they believe marriage to be.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3107 Aug 15, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The gay couple didn't break the law; why would they be punished? People who break the law (like the baker) are the ones who are usually punished. And what was his actual punishment? Being told to sell wedding cakes to all members of the general public, including gays, that wanted to purchase them. He also had to provide diversity training to his staff and file reports. There are far worse punishments meted out to lawbreakers than that.
Government forcing people to believe in “gay marriage” regardless of the circumstance is un-Constitutional. Apparently it’s you who needs “diversity training” to understand the position the baker is holding.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3108 Aug 15, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
We already see you're intellectually retarded by repetitively posting the same unresponsive phrase that doesn't actually address the replies made to you.
Insulting me doesn’t change the facts that more and more of these cases will come up and will eventually have to go to SCOTUS because of the nature of these cases. You are being intellectually dishonest by acting as though the denial of such cases is a validation of Constitutionality. Do you know how many cases SCOTUS deny annually? That doesn’t mean the cases denied don’t have a standing… Had the Photographer case been accepted they would have had to rule in favor of the photographer.

A case will be heard and we will see.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3109 Aug 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
No but planning, baking, delivering and setting up a WEDDING CAKE is a support and participation in the event of the institution of “gay marriage”
No, it isn't. It is providing a service. Baking a cake for any couple entering into a marriage isn't an endorsement of their union, it is an ancillary service. What you are arguing for is a dangerous concept that any business could deny service to anyone of whom they do not approve.
Think about that for a second.
Do you really think that is a good idea?
Respect71 wrote:
Right… ANY American who doesn’t support and participate in “gay marriage” should go to jail or be put out of business… Because of your discrimination against them of what they believe marriage to be.
It's funny that those on your side of this issue keep returning the the threat of jail, which was never on the table. Ultimately, it was ordered that they had to provide service equally to anyone who sought it. Once this decision was entered, the baker elected to stop offering wedding cakes at all rather than serve same sex couples.

Apparently, bigotry was more important to them than business, which is just an indication that they are bigoted, and they are not good business people.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3110 Aug 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Government forcing people to believe in “gay marriage” regardless of the circumstance is un-Constitutional. Apparently it’s you who needs “diversity training” to understand the position the baker is holding.
The government did not, nor could it, force him to believe in anything. They did reassert that he has to bake a cake for anyone who choses to use his services. The decision even listed the conditions that would remove the requirement to provide service such as if the client requested a message that was patently offensive to anyone who saw it.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3111 Aug 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Insulting me doesn’t change the facts that more and more of these cases will come up and will eventually have to go to SCOTUS because of the nature of these cases.
So far that has not been the case. Elane photography lost in every lower court, and was denied a hearing by the US Supreme Court, effectively affirming the opinion of the lower courts.
Respect71 wrote:
Had the Photographer case been accepted they would have had to rule in favor of the photographer.
No, they wouldn't. Upon what legal logic do you base this childish assertion? Because you say so?
Respect71 wrote:
A case will be heard and we will see.
A case may or may not be heard in the near future. However, unless those on your side find a better argument, the only thing we will see is a lose on your end.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3112 Aug 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“So therefore documenting that other people share the same opinion doesn't validate that opinion.” It does, actually, and just because your opinion is opposite doesn’t invalidate yours either… But juts because you hold a different opinion doesn’t mean the government can punish those who don’t believe the same as you.
I'm not. But I'm happy to see you've conceded the point.
Respect71 wrote:
“Richard Carrier or Thomas Thompson, to start.”
“Making a reference to a book is not a refutation. Either explain what the book says or provide a link which can be viewed.” What did you just do above?
I directly answered your questions.

Situation 1
1) You asked for examples of historians who do not accept Jesus' historicity
2) I gave you examples

Situation 2
1) I point out that the Gospel of Luke has a blatant historical error regarding a Roman census
2) You reference a page of some book without saying anything about what it says.

See the difference?
Respect71 wrote:
“No, because I can give you facts (like the census of Luke being a lie) that contradict your religion.” Yet you have no facts to support what you believe.
Of course I have facts.
1) There is no Roman record of any such census.
2) Roman censuses never required people to return to their hometowns.
3) Requiring people to return to their hometowns would defeat the entire purpose of the census, which is to record how many people live in an area.

Can you imagine the US performing a census and ordering everyone to return to the town they were born in? Ridiculous, right?
Respect71 wrote:
“Post 3065, I asked you why those benefits would not be applicable to gay people. You had no answer.
All you can do it repeat your idiotic talking point.” I concede to your “benefits would be applicable to gay people” So therefore what?
So therefore my argument succeeds. You asked why gay marriage was good now. I gave you a reason (it's better for gay people and their children). You conceded the point.
Dan Hater

United States

#3113 Aug 15, 2014
F#*k off you sorry excuse for a human being.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3114 Aug 15, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it isn't. It is providing a service. Baking a cake for any couple entering into a marriage isn't an endorsement of their union, it is an ancillary service. What you are arguing for is a dangerous concept that any business could deny service to anyone of whom they do not approve.
Think about that for a second.
Do you really think that is a good idea?
<quoted text>
It's funny that those on your side of this issue keep returning the the threat of jail, which was never on the table. Ultimately, it was ordered that they had to provide service equally to anyone who sought it. Once this decision was entered, the baker elected to stop offering wedding cakes at all rather than serve same sex couples.
Apparently, bigotry was more important to them than business, which is just an indication that they are bigoted, and they are not good business people.
“No, it isn't. It is providing a service. Baking a cake for any couple entering into a marriage isn't an endorsement of their union, it is an ancillary service. What you are arguing for is a dangerous concept that any business could deny service to anyone of whom they do not approve.” What I’m arguing is Constitutional freedom and the right to support and participate in a sacred institution by choice, not by force of government.

“Think about that for a second.
Do you really think that is a good idea?” Do you think government should force you to support and participate in anti-gay events for the sack of NOT discriminating against hateful Christians?

“It's funny that those on your side of this issue keep returning the the threat of jail, which was never on the table. Ultimately, it was ordered that they had to provide service equally to anyone who sought it. Once this decision was entered, the baker elected to stop offering wedding cakes at all rather than serve same sex couples.” Lie... He was forced to stop offering wedding cakes of face procession based on un-Constitutional laws.

“Apparently, bigotry was more important to them than business, which is just an indication that they are bigoted, and they are not good business people.” Frankly, I see you as the bigot against a person who chooses to honor His God with his talents and not the institution of “gay marriage” and using poor law as an excuse.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3115 Aug 15, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
So far that has not been the case. Elane photography lost in every lower court, and was denied a hearing by the US Supreme Court, effectively affirming the opinion of the lower courts.
<quoted text>
No, they wouldn't. Upon what legal logic do you base this childish assertion? Because you say so?
<quoted text>
A case may or may not be heard in the near future. However, unless those on your side find a better argument, the only thing we will see is a lose on your end.
A case will be heard and we will see.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3116 Aug 15, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not. But I'm happy to see you've conceded the point.
<quoted text>
I directly answered your questions.
Situation 1
1) You asked for examples of historians who do not accept Jesus' historicity
2) I gave you examples
Situation 2
1) I point out that the Gospel of Luke has a blatant historical error regarding a Roman census
2) You reference a page of some book without saying anything about what it says.
See the difference?
<quoted text>
Of course I have facts.
1) There is no Roman record of any such census.
2) Roman censuses never required people to return to their hometowns.
3) Requiring people to return to their hometowns would defeat the entire purpose of the census, which is to record how many people live in an area.
Can you imagine the US performing a census and ordering everyone to return to the town they were born in? Ridiculous, right?
<quoted text>
So therefore my argument succeeds. You asked why gay marriage was good now. I gave you a reason (it's better for gay people and their children). You conceded the point.
Your “secular values” that “They don't "come" from anywhere;” help you to deny history, God, and the fact that Americans should NOT fear government persecution from their own personal beliefs...

Your knowledge value you seriously fails you.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3117 Aug 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Government forcing people to believe in “gay marriage” regardless of the circumstance is un-Constitutional.
The baker isn't being forced to believe anything nor has he been required to change his beliefs. The baker was ordered to key he law by serving all members of he public equally. Why do you lie?
Respect71 wrote:
Apparently it’s you who needs “diversity training” to understand the position the baker is holding.
One doesn't need diversity training to understand the baker wishes to discriminate illegally against a specific group of people with impunity because of his religious beliefs.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3118 Aug 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Insulting me doesn’t change the facts that more and more of these cases will come up and will eventually have to go to SCOTUS because of the nature of these cases.
I don't disagree that more and more of these cases will arise as bigotry masquerading as religious belief seeks legal sanction. However, you have a poor understanding of SCOTUS if you think they will be compelled by the nature of the cases to accept an appeal of what is already settled constitutional law. There would likely need to be Circuit court divergence of opinions before that happens.
Respect71 wrote:
You are being intellectually dishonest by acting as though the denial of such cases is a validation of Constitutionality.
Until such time SCOTUS accepts one of these cases and rules in favor of the person citing religious belief as a defense, these laws are and will continue to be considered constitutional until ruled otherwise.
Respect71 wrote:
Do you know how many cases SCOTUS deny annually? That doesn’t mean the cases denied don’t have a standing…
Standing has nothing to do with it; these cases had to have standing to have reached a state Supreme Court or a federal District court in the first place.
Respect71 wrote:
Had the Photographer case been accepted they would have had to rule in favor of the photographer.
SCOTUS accepting an appeal in no way signals how the Court will eventually rule. Asserting that SCOTUS would have had to rule in favor of the New Mexico photographer had they accepted the appeal only demonstrates once again your ignorance of SCOTUS.
Respect71 wrote:
A case will be heard and we will see.
Don't hold your breath.

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) 1 hr KarlVIIIII 12,608
COMFORT DENTAL ....How Many of you feel Ripped ... (Apr '08) 23 hr Tooth Fairy 86
Nude photos of 12-year-old girl circulated via ... (Feb '10) Mon jayaraj 306
Rocky Mountain Upset? Polling shows once-popula... Mon Sniffles 71
Investigation underway after one found dead (Jul '07) Sun Gomez 25
Review: Weekly Home Buyers List, Inc. Sep 26 scott grawler 1
Parents on separate journeys after tragedy (May '07) Sep 25 KJWyoming 19

Denver Jobs

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]