Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 42841 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

#3123 Aug 18, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
It does when the government (law) forces him to support and participate in the institution of which he chooses not to exercise.
and that institution is what most people call law.

But of course you have no interest in if what he did broke any laws.

You simply want to defend his right to ignore any law because he claims it's God's will.

So if anyone else decides that they don't want to obey a law all they have to do is claim their religion is being trampled. Just like the racists did when anti-miscegenation laws 'forced them' to treat people like people.

Yes you've made that quite clear.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3124 Aug 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Two problems here.
1. It would depend on the message the cake sends.
2. Closely held businesses are people with religious rights.
When did SCOTUS overturn Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act? Where is that in the Hobby Lobby decision?

I must have missed the case where SCOTUS said religion means you can ignore any law you wish.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3125 Aug 20, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
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.
“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?” He was ordered to support and participate in a institution that he does not believe in… These are facts… not lies.

“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.” One needs diversity training when one chooses to hate someone’s belief because one thinks it is wrong to believe that way.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3126 Aug 20, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Don't hold your breath.
Because of the specific nature of these cases a case will be heard and we will see.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3127 Aug 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, you are posting, it can't be narrowed to two problems. Two complexes, perhaps.
<quoted text>
No, it wouldn't. A wedding cake sends no explicit message save for that two people are getting married, and here's a pretty white confection.
<quoted text>
No, Wondering, closely held businesses are still businesses, which are instruments to isolate people from the businesses that they hold.
I am aware of the recent court decision. I am aware of it's extremely limited scope. I am aware that you are too stupid to fully understand that it doesn't apply in the way you wish it to apply. Fortunately, for both of us, your interpretation is not reality, or the world would be a much sadder place. You'll understand when the court's rhetoric bites you in the ass. I suspect your sudden awareness will be accompanied by whining.
The reality is there is a nature to this case that touches both sides deeply and instead of being understanding and being compassionate you choose to support government punishment for what a fellow American believes is a sacred institution. The service is this case does in fact SUPPORT “gay marriage” which is what you desire from ALL, and the reality is you won’t gain that support by punishing those who don’t believe as you do.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3128 Aug 20, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Evading my entire post. Resorting to your awful talking point.
Complete fail.
You choose to attack my beliefs, which are well founded on many different levels of fact and faith… While you claim a faith of “secular values” that “They don't "come" from anywhere;”… These are your statements… You claim knowledge as a “secular value” yet demonstrate a huge lack of knowledge in just basic history. Your blatant denial of facts tell us there is no point in showing you the truth, because you ignore it like you apparently do most things… What you call a talking point is the TRUTH about you.

You failed.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3129 Aug 20, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>and that institution is what most people call law.
But of course you have no interest in if what he did broke any laws.
You simply want to defend his right to ignore any law because he claims it's God's will.
So if anyone else decides that they don't want to obey a law all they have to do is claim their religion is being trampled. Just like the racists did when anti-miscegenation laws 'forced them' to treat people like people.
Yes you've made that quite clear.
“and that institution is what most people call law.” Cite your source on that one. Marriage means something to everyone and I’m pretty sure “law” on the top of that list.

“But of course you have no interest in if what he did broke any laws.

You simply want to defend his right to ignore any law because he claims it's God's will.” While you desire to punish him for his belief while he literally did nothing to the gay couple.

“So if anyone else decides that they don't want to obey a law all they have to do is claim their religion is being trampled. Just like the racists did when anti-miscegenation laws 'forced them' to treat people like people.”
LOL…. We continue the rounds… When did he treat the gay couple not like “people”?

“Yes you've made that quite clear.” You have made it clear you hate his beliefs and desire punishment upon him because he doesn’t believe the same as you.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3130 Aug 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You choose to attack my beliefs, which are well founded on many different levels of fact and faith…
Your beliefs are founded on superstition and foolishness. Faith is intellectual laziness and arrogance.
Respect71 wrote:
While you claim a faith of “secular values” that “They don't "come" from anywhere;”
I don't claim a faith at all.

I support a number of secular values based on how they affect human happiness, among other factors. You started a line of questions implying that these concepts require some kind of physical origin. Where does "peace" come from? The line of questioning was nonsense.
Respect71 wrote:
… These are your statements… You claim knowledge as a “secular value” yet demonstrate a huge lack of knowledge in just basic history.
My knowledge of history far exceeds your own, which is why I've had to constantly educate you on basic historical facts.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3131 Aug 20, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your beliefs are founded on superstition and foolishness. Faith is intellectual laziness and arrogance.
<quoted text>
I don't claim a faith at all.
I support a number of secular values based on how they affect human happiness, among other factors. You started a line of questions implying that these concepts require some kind of physical origin. Where does "peace" come from? The line of questioning was nonsense.
<quoted text>
My knowledge of history far exceeds your own, which is why I've had to constantly educate you on basic historical facts.
Insults and your ignorance won’t change facts…

As for “laziness and arrogance.” Based on this thread, you feel you are superior to Christians and people of religion and you hold that as a faith and belief.

As for “secular values based on how they affect human happiness” is so general you can’t even fathom its vast implications. To some killing makes humans happy! To others killing makes humans sad to the point of taking their own lives. To some Christians make them very unhappy and angry, until that day a Christian pulls them out of a deep financial hole and guides them to better stability which affect their happiness immensely! So it is obvious you subscribe to “secular values” that “They don't "come" from anywhere;”

As for the nonsensical question of “Where does "peace" come from?”… You can’t obtain something that you don’t know where it comes from… That is you are the way you are.

This thread affectively shows your knowledge of history.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3132 Aug 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
He was ordered to support and participate in a institution that he does not believe in… These are facts… not lies.
Your original assertion was he was being forced by the government "to believe in “gay marriage.” Actually, the baker was ordered to serve all customers equally regardless of their sexual orientation. He wasn't told to change his beliefs about anything. So in fact you did lie. Further, selling a cake to someone for use in an event is not an act of participation in the institution or event. So that's another lie.

And rather than serving all customers equally, the baker chose to stop selling wedding cakes to any customers which did in fact eliminate the circumstances under which he refused to provide service to some of his customers that caused the original violation of the law. However, eliminating an entire segment of his business was not the remedy ordered by the government but was instead a personal decision of the baker.
Respect71 wrote:
One needs diversity training when one chooses to hate someone’s belief because one thinks it is wrong to believe that way.
I personally couldn't care less what the baker believes about anything. So in fact I don't hate him or anyone because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise.

What I expect as a citizen is that all people receive equal protection of the law as mandated by the federal constitution and that all citizens obey the law or suffer the resulting consequences. We are supposed to be a nation of laws under the rule of law, not a nation of individuals who can self-determine the laws with which they wish to comply based on their religious beliefs.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3133 Aug 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because of the specific nature of these cases a case will be heard and we will see.
I can continue to respond "don't hold your breath" every time to you continue to post this non-repsonsive hope/prayer.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3134 Aug 20, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Your original assertion was he was being forced by the government "to believe in “gay marriage.” Actually, the baker was ordered to serve all customers equally regardless of their sexual orientation. He wasn't told to change his beliefs about anything. So in fact you did lie. Further, selling a cake to someone for use in an event is not an act of participation in the institution or event. So that's another lie.
And rather than serving all customers equally, the baker chose to stop selling wedding cakes to any customers which did in fact eliminate the circumstances under which he refused to provide service to some of his customers that caused the original violation of the law. However, eliminating an entire segment of his business was not the remedy ordered by the government but was instead a personal decision of the baker.
<quoted text>
I personally couldn't care less what the baker believes about anything. So in fact I don't hate him or anyone because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise.
What I expect as a citizen is that all people receive equal protection of the law as mandated by the federal constitution and that all citizens obey the law or suffer the resulting consequences. We are supposed to be a nation of laws under the rule of law, not a nation of individuals who can self-determine the laws with which they wish to comply based on their religious beliefs.
“Your original assertion was he was being forced by the government "to believe in “gay marriage.” My assertion is and always has been it is not the government’s place to force any business person to use their talents to support and participate in a institution they don’t believe in… The same goes for the gay caterer who refuses service to a hatful church for an anti-gay rally.

“So in fact you did lie.” I think that you are misreading my posts. I do not lie.

“Further, selling a cake to someone for use in an event is not an act of participation in the institution or event.” A wedding cake is because of the multiple hours spent planning plus delivery and setup at the event, and it’s even more so for a wedding photographer… Again, not a lie.

“I personally couldn't care less what the baker believes about anything. So in fact I don't hate him or anyone because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise.

What I expect as a citizen is that all people receive equal protection of the law as mandated by the federal constitution and that all citizens obey the law or suffer the resulting consequences. We are supposed to be a nation of laws under the rule of law, not a nation of individuals who can self-determine the laws with which they wish to comply based on their religious beliefs.”
The First Amendment allows one to choose what one can use their talents to support and participate in.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3135 Aug 20, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I can continue to respond "don't hold your breath" every time to you continue to post this non-repsonsive hope/prayer.
Because of the specific nature of these cases a case will be heard and we will see… It will be fact soon enough.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3136 Aug 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
As for “laziness and arrogance.” Based on this thread, you feel you are superior to Christians and people of religion and you hold that as a faith and belief.
I don't feel that I'm superior. However, Christianity is an irrational belief.
Respect71 wrote:
As for “secular values based on how they affect human happiness” is so general you can’t even fathom its vast implications. To some killing makes humans happy!
You seem to have forgotten the victim's perspective, which is a vital part of the equation.
Respect71 wrote:
As for the nonsensical question of “Where does "peace" come from?”
[/QUOTE}

You just called your own question from earlier "nonsensical". Nice job, Slick.

[QUOTE who="Respect71"]
This thread affectively shows your knowledge of history.
Yes, and it's much stronger than yours on numerous issues including the Bible, the Enlightenment, the creation of the Constitution, and slavery in America.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3137 Aug 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
My assertion is and always has been it is not the government’s place to force any business person to use their talents to support and participate in a institution they don’t believe in… The same goes for the gay caterer who refuses service to a hatful church for an anti-gay rally.
It's also the same logic used by racists to justify why they shouldn't have to serve black people. Many Christians historically cited their religious beliefs to defend both slavery and segregation.
Respect71 wrote:
I think that you are misreading my posts. I do not lie.
On the contrary, I read English quite well. Perhaps you're just sloppy and inexact in your choice of words and thus assert things you don't really mean. Stating the baker was forced to change his beliefs doesn't mean the same as what you asserted above.

Your command of English is also poor when you keep misusing the word "participate" to describe selling a cake to a person to serve at a wedding reception.
Respect71 wrote:
A wedding cake is because of the multiple hours spent planning plus delivery and setup at the event, and it’s even more so for a wedding photographer…
By the same logic the cleaning service that vacuums the floor, cleans toilets and restocks toilet paper also "participates" in such events since they spend hours cleaning the venue and they deliver the toilet paper to restock the restroom facilities.

And I previously agreed, a photographer has a better claim to participation since they actually have to be on site during the wedding ceremony, unlike bakers and caterers and florists who either drop of the purchased goods or provide services during the reception (otherwise known as a party) and not the actual wedding ceremony to which you claim these lawbreakers have such strong religious beliefs against. Regardless, courts have still ruled against photographers who offered your arguments as well, including recently the New Mexico Supreme Court (which the photographer appealed to SOCTUS and was turned down, contrary to your assertion that SCOTUS would have to hear such a case due to its nature).
Respect71 wrote:
Again, not a lie.
It is when you deliberately misuse words such as "participate" to give them non-standard meanings that aren't universally recognized or accepted. A baker simply doesn't "participate" in an event when they aren't present when the actual event occurs.
Respect71 wrote:
The First Amendment allows one to choose what one can use their talents to support and participate in.
Actually, it doesn't when a person sells said talents or the results of said talents via a business deemed a public accommodation. States have created a civil right to be equally served by public accommodations and refusal to provide service to members of a protected class violates both the law and infringes the civil right of the person refused service. The asserted first amendment right by the business owner is superseded by the compelling state interest of ensuring equal access for minorities that have historically been discriminated against. Anti-discrmination laws have repeatedly been upheld by federal courts and SCOTUS against first amendment claims because to do otherwise would make individuals laws unto themselves, able to violate any law with impunity simply by declaring the law contrary to their personal religious beliefs.

The New Mexico Supreme Court applied settled constitutional law when it ruled against the photographer in that state and SCOTUS denied the appeal because there was simply no issue or error in the application of existing precedent in that case.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3138 Aug 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Because of the specific nature of these cases a case will be heard and we will see… It will be fact soon enough.
Don't hold your breath.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3139 Aug 21, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The reality is there is a nature to this case that touches both sides deeply and instead of being understanding and being compassionate you choose to support government punishment for what a fellow American believes is a sacred institution.
You mischaracterize my position, which to be fair, were I making an argument as inept as your own, I would probably do too. I don't support the government, nor do I condone punishment for one's opinions. I do support individual freedom, and equality under the law.
You, on the other hand, support the notion that one should be able to project their religious moral views onto others. That they should not only be able to make decisions for themselves, but also to hold others to their religious moral views. That is both short sided, contrary to free exercise, and contrary to freedom in general.
The free exercise of the proprietors is satisfied by their ability to make choices for themselves. As such, if they feel homosexuality or gay marriage is wrong, they have the right not to enter into such a union. To be able to deny service to those with differing views, or to require patrons to abide by the proprietor's interpretation of their religious moral views is patently absurd, and absolutely a violation of the free exercise and free will of the patron. Only an idiot would propose such a measure, and only a fool would fail to see the potential impact upon their own lives of businesses being able to project their views in this manner. Following your assertion, a lunch counter owner in the south could deny service to a black man, or a KKK owned business could deny service to a Jew.
Do you think either of those situations is advisable?
It wouldn't take long before you would find a similar instance where you would be denied service for some obscure reason.
Respect71 wrote:
The service is this case does in fact SUPPORT “gay marriage” which is what you desire from ALL, and the reality is you won’t gain that support by punishing those who don’t believe as you do.
No, it doesn't. It's baking a f*cking cake. Grow up.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3140 Aug 21, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't feel that I'm superior. However, Christianity is an irrational belief.
<quoted text>
You seem to have forgotten the victim's perspective, which is a vital part of the equation.
<quoted text>
Yes, and it's much stronger than yours on numerous issues including the Bible, the Enlightenment, the creation of the Constitution, and slavery in America.
“I don't feel that I'm superior.” Post #2738 you state “Secular values are far superior to religious ones,”“However, Christianity is an irrational belief.” As opposed to your “secular values” that “They don't "come" from anywhere;” which is far more rational.

“You seem to have forgotten the victim's perspective, which is a vital part of the equation.” So you’re saying the perspective of the victim voids the perspective of the killer? Why? For what reason?

“You just called your own question from earlier "nonsensical". Nice job, Slick.” Post # 3130 you state “Where does "peace" come from? The line of questioning was nonsense.” Do you feel peace is nonsense, are you ashamed for not understanding what peace is, ashamed for thinking peace is now, or do things just not make sense to you because your values come from nowhere?

“Yes, and it's much stronger than yours on numerous issues including the Bible, the Enlightenment, the creation of the Constitution, and slavery in America.” Keep telling yourself that, we all see the truth.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3141 Aug 21, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
It's also the same logic used by racists to justify why they shouldn't have to serve black people. Many Christians historically cited their religious beliefs to defend both slavery and segregation.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, I read English quite well. Perhaps you're just sloppy and inexact in your choice of words and thus assert things you don't really mean. Stating the baker was forced to change his beliefs doesn't mean the same as what you asserted above.
Your command of English is also poor when you keep misusing the word "participate" to describe selling a cake to a person to serve at a wedding reception.
<quoted text>ipate" to give them non-standard meanings that aren't universally recognized or accepted. A baker simply doesn't "participate" in an event when they aren't present when the actual event occurs.
<quoted text>
Actually, it doesn't when a person sells said talents or the results of said talents via a business deemed a public accommodation. States have created a civil right to be equally served by public accommodations and refusal to provide service to members of a protected class violates both the law and infringes the civil right of the person refused service. The asserted first amendment right by the business owner is superseded by the compelling state interest of ensuring equal access for minorities that have historically been discriminated against. Anti-discrmination laws have repeatedly been upheld by federal courts and SCOTUS against first amendment claims because to do otherwise would make individuals laws unto themselves, able to violate any law with impunity simply by declaring the law contrary to their personal religious beliefs.
The New Mexico Supreme Court applied settled constitutional law when it ruled against the photographer in that state and SCOTUS denied the appeal because there was simply no issue or error in the application of existing precedent in that case.
“It's also the same logic used by racists to justify why they shouldn't have to serve black people. Many Christians historically cited their religious beliefs to defend both slavery and segregation.” Agreed but we are not talking about race.

“Your command of English is also poor when you keep misusing the word "participate" to describe selling a cake to a person to serve at a wedding reception.” It means what it means… How many weddings have you been to where it’s set up by anyone other than the baker?

“By the same logic the cleaning service that vacuums the floor, cleans toilets and restocks toilet paper also "participates" in such events since they spend hours cleaning the venue and they deliver the toilet paper to restock the restroom facilities.” Because of the nature of marriage the wedding industry should be exempt from accommodation laws, just like churches, based on the First Amendment of our Constitution.

“It is when you deliberately misuse words such as "participate" to give them non-standard meanings that aren't universally recognized or accepted. A baker simply doesn't "participate" in an event when they aren't present when the actual event occurs.” It’s fact no matter how you want to spin it towards your favor.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3142 Aug 21, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't hold your breath.
Because of the specific nature of these cases a case will be heard and we will see… It will be fact soon enough.

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
What would happen if the United States ever dec... (Oct '10) 1 hr SlapYoKidz 213
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 2 hr Respect71 26,175
News Mother, 2 Kids Go Missing In Highlands Ranch 2 hr Kelly 9
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 2 hr Cheryl 686
News Support strong for assisted suicide ballot meas... 2 hr Andrew 20
News Ten Things to Do in Denver for $10 or Less (Eig... 13 hr Sweeney 4
kinfolk mc member a snitch! 13 hr TRUTH45 2

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages