Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 4,400

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

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3143 Aug 21, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“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.
Actually, DisRespect71, the reason why secular beliefs are superior is that they are required to ensure religious freedom. You have the freedom to chose your religious beliefs because the government is forced to be secular, which prevents any religion from gaining a stronghold that would allow them to edge out your ability to freely exercise the religion of your choosing.

Do you see how that works?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3144 Aug 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. It's baking a f*cking cake. Grow up.
I understand you want the government to force your belief upon those who don’t believe as you… It’s obvious from your posts how you feel about people who don’t believe the same as you.

Because of the NATURE of what marriage is in society, to individuals, to persons of faith, the wedding industry needs to be exempt from any such accommodation laws, based on the First Amendment. Government cannot prevent the free exercise of what marriage means to anyone church, business, or individual and it is not okay for government to impose your views upon said Americans. It only stands to reason…

It’s a wedding cake… Of which you want to force ALL Americans to look upon “gay marriage” as… You can finish that sentence…
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3145 Aug 21, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“I don't feel that I'm superior.” Post #2738 you state “Secular values are far superior to religious ones,”
Correct. That doesn't make me a superior human being.
Respect71 wrote:
“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?
It doesn't void it, but both must be accounted for. Actions which harm others are typically unethical.
Respect71 wrote:
“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?
You can't even follow a conversation.

Respect, where does peace come from?
Respect71 wrote:
“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.
Yeah, that you've gotten schooled repeatedly. Your knowledge of history is as bad as your knowledge of law and religion.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3146 Aug 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, DisRespect71, the reason why secular beliefs are superior is that they are required to ensure religious freedom. You have the freedom to chose your religious beliefs because the government is forced to be secular, which prevents any religion from gaining a stronghold that would allow them to edge out your ability to freely exercise the religion of your choosing.
Do you see how that works?
Please cite the document that states…“secular beliefs are superior is that they are required to ensure religious freedom.”
What? You can’t? is that because your “secular values” truly “They don't "come" from anywhere;”?

It’s because of Judeo-Christian values that support our freedom of religion and the freedom of each individual to choose. This is where you lack of history shows through, but by all means I would be glad to read the book that told you,“You have the freedom to chose your religious beliefs because the government is forced to be secular,”

Where does your freedom come from?

Do you see that you have nothing to support your statements?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3147 Aug 21, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I understand you want the government to force your belief upon those who don’t believe as you… It’s obvious from your posts how you feel about people who don’t believe the same as you.
Because of the NATURE of what marriage is in society, to individuals, to persons of faith, the wedding industry needs to be exempt from any such accommodation laws, based on the First Amendment. Government cannot prevent the free exercise of what marriage means to anyone church, business, or individual and it is not okay for government to impose your views upon said Americans. It only stands to reason…
It’s a wedding cake… Of which you want to force ALL Americans to look upon “gay marriage” as… You can finish that sentence…
No, I've never said anything remotely to this effect. I can understand why you would want to twist my words into this configuration because it makes your patently absurd argument seem more valid. Simply put, it isn't.
Anti-discrimination laws do not violate the religious freedom or free speech of business owners who believe differently from their patrons. Providing a cake for someone with differing beliefs doesn't violate any right of the business owner. Only a fool would claim that it did.
Your argument lost in court, because it is lacking in rational basis.
Your argument lost on appeal, because it is lacking in rational basis.
Your argument simply has no roots in reality.

Providing a wedding cake for a black couples doesn't violate the baker's rights.
Providing a wedding cake for an interracial couple does not violate the baker's rights.
Providing a wedding cake for a Jewish couple does not violate the baker's rights.
Providing a wedding cake for a Muslim couple does not violate the baker's rights.
Providing a wedding cake for a Gay couple does not violate the baker's rights.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3148 Aug 21, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Please cite the document that states…“secular beliefs are superior is that they are required to ensure religious freedom.”
What? You can’t? is that because your “secular values” truly “They don't "come" from anywhere;”?
It’s because of Judeo-Christian values that support our freedom of religion and the freedom of each individual to choose. This is where you lack of history shows through, but by all means I would be glad to read the book that told you,“You have the freedom to chose your religious beliefs because the government is forced to be secular,”
Where does your freedom come from?
Do you see that you have nothing to support your statements?
This isn't even difficult.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
US Constitution, 1st Amendment.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first...

By definition, if we value religious freedom, it is necessary that a secular government be maintained, as any law respecting the establishment of any one religion does so to the detriment of all others. Ergo, the secular is superior to the religious in order to ensure that the individual may choose whatever religion they desire to follow.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3149 Aug 21, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
What? You can’t? is that because your “secular values” truly “They don't "come" from anywhere;”?
It’s because of Judeo-Christian values that support our freedom of religion and the freedom of each individual to choose.
Historically, Jewish and Christian societies have persecuted people who did not share their religion. In fact, Judaism demands that apostates be executed.

Would you care to cite the location in the Torah or the Bible where it says people can practice any religion they want to?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#3150 Aug 21, 2014
Respect71 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?” 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.
And when we point out that these people had no problem taking gay dollars for any other service, despite their religious views on homosexuality, you have no response that doesn't come off sounding like Ralph Camden getting caught in another scheme:

"Humina. Humina. Humina."

BTW how come this is such an issue for religious freedom yet you remain silent about the law in Indiana that would jail members of clergy. Seems religious freedom means something different with you on a case by case basis. Why aren't you defending the guy who attacked Chik Fil-A because of his religious beliefs?

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3151 Aug 21, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“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.
Fundamentally, there's no difference between refusing to provide goods/services to someone because of their race and refusing to provide goods/services to someone because of their sexual orientation. And lest you be tempted to assert your lie again about discriminating against the "event" of a wedding, it would be no different if the baker refused to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple or a black couple because he doesn't believe in the "institution of interracial or black marriage" (which, if you recall your US history, black slaves as a rule weren't allowed to marry and interracial marriages were banned in most states for a significant portion of our history).
Respect71 wrote:
It means what it means… How many weddings have you been to where it’s set up by anyone other than the baker?
Several. Not everyone has a wedding cake the size of an aircraft carrier that requires special set up. Regardless, the wedding cake is part of the reception, not the wedding ceremony. So are you going to claim the baker has a religious belief against parties as well?
Respect71 wrote:
Because of the nature of marriage the wedding industry should be exempt from accommodation laws,
There's nothing special about the wedding industry that deserves exemption from anti-discrmination laws.

Respect71 wrote:
just like churches, based on the First Amendment of our Constitution.
Churches are exempt because they are generally organized as non-profits and apply for and receive tax exempt status. They are considered private organizations that can set their own membership standards and receive exemption from some laws because their "business" is religion, not selling goods and services for profit. That's not the case with the baker of businesses in the wedding industry in general.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s fact no matter how you want to spin it towards your favor.
No, it's simply a lie on your part no matter how you try to twist the English language.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3152 Aug 21, 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.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3153 Aug 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I've never said anything remotely to this effect. I can understand why you would want to twist my words into this configuration because it makes your patently absurd argument seem more valid. Simply put, it isn't.
Anti-discrimination laws do not violate the religious freedom or free speech of business owners who believe differently from their patrons. Providing a cake for someone with differing beliefs doesn't violate any right of the business owner. Only a fool would claim that it did.
Your argument lost in court, because it is lacking in rational basis.
Your argument lost on appeal, because it is lacking in rational basis.
Your argument simply has no roots in reality.
Providing a wedding cake for a black couples doesn't violate the baker's rights.
Providing a wedding cake for an interracial couple does not violate the baker's rights.
Providing a wedding cake for a Jewish couple does not violate the baker's rights.
Providing a wedding cake for a Muslim couple does not violate the baker's rights.
Providing a wedding cake for a Gay couple does not violate the baker's rights.
Re-read your posts… They come across angry and the impression one is left with is punishment to the baker because he doesn’t believe as you.

The reality is the marriage means a husband and wife to the baker, and the choice to use his talents for that institution is his based on the First Amendment no matter how you spin it…

The fact that you use race and religion as a attempt to solidify your position is sad and dishonest. I over and over show that it’s the difference is in the institution of marriage (not SEX or RELIGON or RACE) and government forcing a business owner to use his talents to support and participate in that institution is not okay.

Lastly, you are also dishonest about the service provided, acting as though the purchase of a wedding cake is equal to that of going through the drive thru at a McDonalds. It is NOT just a cake.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3154 Aug 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't even difficult.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
US Constitution, 1st Amendment.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first...
By definition, if we value religious freedom, it is necessary that a secular government be maintained, as any law respecting the establishment of any one religion does so to the detriment of all others. Ergo, the secular is superior to the religious in order to ensure that the individual may choose whatever religion they desire to follow.
“This isn't even difficult.” Apparently it is. Where do Americans get their rights from?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3155 Aug 22, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Historically, Jewish and Christian societies have persecuted people who did not share their religion. In fact, Judaism demands that apostates be executed.
Would you care to cite the location in the Torah or the Bible where it says people can practice any religion they want to?
When you can answer my questions that I have posed to you I would be more than happy to address yours.

You said,“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 also said,“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?

Where does your freedom come from?
Do you see that you have nothing to support your statements?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3156 Aug 22, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Fundamentally, there's no difference between refusing to provide goods/services to someone because of their race and refusing to provide goods/services to someone because of their sexual orientation. And lest you be tempted to assert your lie again about discriminating against the "event" of a wedding, it would be no different if the baker refused to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple or a black couple because he doesn't believe in the "institution of interracial or black marriage" (which, if you recall your US history, black slaves as a rule weren't allowed to marry and interracial marriages were banned in most states for a significant portion of our history).
<quoted text>
Several. Not everyone has a wedding cake the size of an aircraft carrier that requires special set up. Regardless, the wedding cake is part of the reception, not the wedding ceremony. So are you going to claim the baker has a religious belief against parties as well?
<quoted text>
There's nothing special about the wedding industry that deserves exemption from anti-discrmination laws.
<quoted text>
Churches are exempt because they are generally organized as non-profits and apply for and receive tax exempt status. They are considered private organizations that can set their own membership standards and receive exemption from some laws because their "business" is religion, not selling goods and services for profit. That's not the case with the baker of businesses in the wedding industry in general.
<quoted text>
No, it's simply a lie on your part no matter how you try to twist the English language.
“And when we point out that these people had no problem taking gay dollars for any other service, despite their religious views on homosexuality, you have no response that doesn't come off sounding like Ralph Camden getting caught in another scheme:

"Humina. Humina. Humina."” Because of the NATURE of the INSTITUTION of MARRIAGE! Therefore the argument that he discriminated against the gay couple because they are gay is void. It’s about supporting and participating in a institution that he does not believe in.

“BTW how come this is such an issue for religious freedom yet you remain silent about the law in Indiana that would jail members of clergy.” BTW I have ask you many times to post the specific law of which you speak of so that I may have to opportunity to read said law before I state an opinion… Why haven’t you done so?

“Seems religious freedom means something different with you on a case by case basis. Why aren't you defending the guy who attacked Chik Fil-A because of his religious beliefs?” Which guy is that? Are you speaking of gays hating and protesting Cathy? I support their right to do so, but Cathy does nothing to discriminate gays from eating in their Chick-Fil-As.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3157 Aug 22, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't hold your breath.
We will see…
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3158 Aug 22, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can answer my questions that I have posed to you I would be more than happy to address yours.
No, you won't.
Respect71 wrote:
You said,“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?
It is a necessity that certain minimum rights be established by individuals, like being alive, unharmed, and free, or everything else falls apart.
Respect71 wrote:
You also said,“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?
Peace is not nonsense.
I do understand what peace is.
The world now is relatively peaceful compared to the past.
Things make plenty of sense to me - my values are more grounded than yours.
Respect71 wrote:
Where does your freedom come from?
Do you see that you have nothing to support your statements?
Again, your question is nonsense. Freedom simply IS.

Where do you think freedom comes from?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3159 Aug 22, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Re-read your posts… They come across angry and the impression one is left with is punishment to the baker because he doesn’t believe as you.
No, DisRespect, I advocate him not being able to project his religious moral views onto his customers in violation of their rights.
Preventing him from discriminating on the basis of his religious moral views in no way infringes upon any of his rights. He is being asked to provide a service to make a baked good. He isn't being asked to sanctify the ceremony where the baked good will be consumed, he isn't being asked to preside over the ceremony, he isn't being asked to provide a written endorsement of the union, he isn't being asked to marry someone of the same sex, he isn't being prevented from going to a religious service, he's being asked to bake a cake.

Get a grip kiddo.
Respect71 wrote:
The reality is the marriage means a husband and wife to the baker, and the choice to use his talents for that institution is his based on the First Amendment no matter how you spin it…
The reality is that providing a cake to a same sex couples does not impact his views on marriage. He may still believe that marriage is between a husband and wife.
Respect71 wrote:
The fact that you use race and religion as a attempt to solidify your position is sad and dishonest. I over and over show that it’s the difference is in the institution of marriage (not SEX or RELIGON or RACE) and government forcing a business owner to use his talents to support and participate in that institution is not okay.
The reality remains that there is a difference between religious and civil marriage, and you are advocating for the infringement of the free exercise of religion by allowing vendors to place religious tests in order to avail one's self of their services. If you don't see why such a state is dangerous, and could quite frankly backfire on you in the most hysterical of ways, then you are a dim bulb indeed.
Respect71 wrote:
Lastly, you are also dishonest about the service provided, acting as though the purchase of a wedding cake is equal to that of going through the drive thru at a McDonalds. It is NOT just a cake.
It is just a cake. That you are trying to grant a ministerial status to it is absolutely hysterical. The baker isn't a cleric, he's a baker.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3160 Aug 22, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Apparently it is. Where do Americans get their rights from?
The US Constitution. And so long as they are persons, and I assure you homosexuals are, they are constitutionally entitled to equality under the law.

The reality remains, DisRespect, that you are utterly incapable of presenting a well reasoned and detailed explanation of how providing the service in any way infringes upon the baker's rights. Your difficulty in doing so merely underscores that the courts were correct in their rulings, and providing the service in no way infringes upon the rights of the baker.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3161 Aug 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I advocate him not being able to project his religious moral views onto his customers in violation of their rights.
2. Preventing him from discriminating on the basis of his religious moral views in no way infringes upon any of his rights.
3. He is being asked to provide a service to make a baked good.
1. I advocate them not being able to use gay rights to trump 1st amendment rights..
2. That is your misinformed opinion.
3. He provided them with baked goods regularly.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3162 Aug 22, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I advocate them not being able to use gay rights to trump 1st amendment rights..
When have 1st Amendment rights invalidated Anti-Discrimination laws for public businesses?

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) 23 min Sniper II 13,728
Denver tar 12 hr LuvH 1
Denver tar? (Aug '11) 12 hr Blackeee 5
last post wins! (Feb '11) 17 hr mr goodwrench 24,749
Internet Marketing Benefits 21 hr Scambo Mc C note 1
Review: Weekly Home Buyers List, Inc. 22 hr Madam Kelly Brooker 6
The Media in Ferguson should be Fair, Balanced,... Wed FOX knews 2
Denver Dating
Find my Match

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:05 am PST

CBS Sports10:05AM
Eric Berry: 'Enjoy the day and don't worry, we're #BERRYSTRONG'
NBC Sports12:53 PM
Julius Thomas practices, Fox dubs tight end "day to day"
NBC Sports 1:27 PM
Anderson's arrival, Green's return keys Broncos - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 4:08 PM
With Ron Parker moving to safety, Chiefs look at cornerbacks
Bleacher Report 5:22 PM
Cowboys Offense Must Find Groove to Make Playoff Push