Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 42832 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

#3184 Aug 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The reality is he did not. The gay couple, by asking him to provide a wedding cake, asked him to provide support and participation for the celebration of their institution of which the baker doesn’t believe.
No, the gay men simply asked for a wedding cake. All the other emotional baggage you cite is solely the baker's and has nothing to do with the gay men and their request.
Respect71 wrote:
The baker was willing to sell anything in his shop outside of the wedding cake, thus showing there was no discrimination BASED on sexual orientation.
Unfortunately for you and the baker, anti-discrmiantion laws apply to ALL goods and services, not just those the business owner wishes them applicable to. If the baker sells wedding cakes, he must sell them to ALL customers. If he refuses to sell a wedding cake to gay men, then the refusal is based on their sexual orientation and thus violates the law since sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado. It doesn't matter whether the business owner would sell other goods and services to the gay men; the refusal to sell the goods and services requested by the gay men triggers a violation of the law.
Respect71 wrote:
Calling it a lie is a weak defense of you stance on punishing a person of faith for his convictions, when he literally did nothing to the gay couple.
Words have meaning and what I've called a lie fits the meaning of the word, whether you like it or not.

The baker in fact violated the civil rights of the gay men, a civil right established by the state of Colorado that all people should be able to freely and equally purchase goods an services from a public accommodation. Saying the baker "literally did nothing to the gay couple" is another lie and a pathetic justification for breaking the law.

One wonders why so many of your assertions defending this baker are lies. Perhaps you should seek professional help for what appears to be a rather chronic case of pathological lying.
Respect71 wrote:
I answered, honestly. How you process it is on your shoulders.
I took your words at face value so if you don't like my assessment of your position then you have only yourself to blame.
Respect71 wrote:
Will you support government prosecution of the gay caterer for refusing to cater a anti-gay event that a hateful church commissioned him to support and participate in? Will you call it religious discrimination?
Previously asked and answered. Are you now senile in addition to being a pathological liar?
Respect71 wrote:
“Not special enough to justify exemption from anti-discrimination laws.” Yes, it absolutely is, because of the very nature of what marriage means to individuals across the Country.
The law is based on common consensus rather than individual feelings. And civil marriage has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
That’s all you can do, is attempt to marginalize me?
Commenting on your lack of knowledge and education doesn't marginalize you; your lack of knowledge and education does that. I haven't called for your removal from Topix nor interfered with your ability to express your opinions despite the fact you're unqualified to discuss the topic. Rather than whining about your deficiencies perhaps you should do something to address them.
Respect71 wrote:
You will not win people to your side ever, especially if you support government punishments for not believing that same as yourself.
It's generally not possible to "win" over the ignorant masses to which you belong because you lack the requisite legal knowledge to understand the issues. You respond based on emotion and ignorance. That's why issues like this, segregation and same sex marriage generally are fought in the legal system.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3185 Aug 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The fact that YOU use race and religion as an attempt to solidify your position is sad and dishonest.

You are claiming that the Civil Rights Act is illegal.

You have claimed the Hobby Lobby decision supports you.

You still can't show how this wasn't discrimination based on religion.

WHICH IS ILLEGAL!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3186 Aug 27, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that YOU use race and religion as an attempt to solidify your position is sad and dishonest.
Homosexuals lean heavily on the race thing. You are a hypocrite.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3187 Aug 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
RE#3

Which shows that his "religious views" don't really apply.

NEXT!

Maybe you should go back to claiming you know of 3 marriages destroyed by SSM then denying it and calling me a liar like you did on "Gay Patient Sues Over Medical Chart"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TDUP1D5TC...
Others please note posts 51 and then 53 written by 'wondering'

He can't even keep up with his own lies!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3188 Aug 27, 2014
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TDUP1D5TC...
Post # 51
DNF wrote:
BTW I asked you a while back how many traditional marriages have been destroyed because of SSM and you claimed you knew of 3. Thing is in none of those cases did you show that legalization of SSM was the reason those marriages failed.
That is false, so I can only assume the deleted part was also false. I never said that I knew of 3 marriages that were destroyed by SSM. Why do you people lie so often? Probably for the same reason you reject the truth so often.

post # 53
lides wrote:
Once again, Wondering lies.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TFRI8C9A2 ...
Here's what I said, read carefully:
"Same sex relationships have destroyed many marriages. I know of 3. Families with kids. In each case it was a woman that left her family for another woman."

Now I'll help you to understand what I said. The key words here are: "Same sex relationships." Most people would know this but I'm not surprised that you don't. A 'relationship' is not a marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong, SSM is an acronym for 'Same Sex Marriage.'

Let's sum up now. You are a liar or you're stupid or both. I go with both. Now go play.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3189 Aug 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“People typically have a lot of the same basic desires: health, happiness, safety, freedom, etc.” Which people? Who? Why?
So I have to ask since you seem so brilliant.

What do you think SCOTUS will say about a the constitutionality of the State of Indiana passing a law in 1997 that would jail ministers who perform religious rites?

Why do anti-gay folks defend photographers and bakers for religious freedom but ignore members of clergy?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3190 Aug 28, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question isn't honest? Thanks for the admission.
<quoted text>
It improves the life of the mother while harming no one.
[Note: I support abortion to around 5 months term. Around that time, fetal brain development gives the fetus the ability to experience things]
<quoted text>
Don't try to weasel your way out of my question. I never said there has ever been world peace, so why did you accuse me of that?
I'm not oblivious to human conflict at all, I simply recognize that the modern world has LESS than it used to.
<quoted text>
Your definition confirms my statement. The WW2 era had less tranquility, less order, less mutual concord between governments, and more hostilities.
<quoted text>
Clearly not, because you keep answering my HOW questions with WHO answers. How did God create freedom?
<quoted text>
I'm not playing word games. You just ran yourself into a corner. If God inherently has freedom, then freedom is not a concept that God had to create. It just IS, as I said to begin with.
<quoted text>
Freedom means nothing in Iran, North Korea, or America? Please explain your statement.
“Your question isn't honest? Thanks for the admission.” It’s absolutely honest. Why can’t you answer?

“It improves the life of the mother while harming no one.
[Note: I support abortion to around 5 months term. Around that time, fetal brain development gives the fetus the ability to experience things]” Harms no one except the unborn baby’s life that was snuffed out. What kind of brain activity does one need for a heartbeat? That occurs at six weeks. Your idea that you have to be able to experience something to be alive makes less sense that “secular values” where “They don't "come" from anywhere;”.

“Don't try to weasel your way out of my question. I never said there has ever been world peace, so why did you accuse me of that?” You are the one who claimed peace, and now playing the dodge with word games. Is the peace or not?

“I'm not oblivious to human conflict at all, I simply recognize that the modern world has LESS than it used to.” Your state of mind is revealed.

“Your definition confirms my statement. The WW2 era had less tranquility, less order, less mutual concord between governments, and more hostilities.” Then explain Russia, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the ever growing radical state of Islam that continues to threaten the world and the US?

“Clearly not, because you keep answering my HOW questions with WHO answers. How did God create freedom?” By creating you. So please explain the mechanism of which Americans have freedom, if not from a creator?

“I'm not playing word games. You just ran yourself into a corner. If God inherently has freedom, then freedom is not a concept that God had to create.” How so? If that is true that why the world practice of slavery? Why do many Countries still practice slavery?

“It just IS, as I said to begin with.” Explain the mechanism of which freedom “just IS” given there is still slavery in the world?

“Freedom means nothing in Iran, North Korea, or America? Please explain your statement.” You explain your statement it’s your assertion… How does the human experience freedom in Iran? In North Korea? America?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3191 Aug 28, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you are the one who isn't arguing for all Americans. You argue only for those you happen to agree with, and think that they should be able to discriminate against those who believe differently. You have made this abundantly clear.
<quoted text>
No, DisRespect, it doesn't. It takes us back to segregation and discrimination. Providing a service for someone with differing views regarding religion in no way infringes upon the free exercise of the baker, nor does it infringe upon any of the baker's rights. The court has rightly found this to be the case, as did the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
You have been utterly incapable of offering a single way in which the baker's rights are affected by making a baked good for someone who believes differently.
I merely stand for the freedoms of ALL Americans while you continue to argue government punishment for a man you clearly believes different than you. What I propose doesn’t use government to punish ANYONE, or force ANYONE out of business based on their differing religious views or otherwise. You choose to marginalize and demonize, punish and force fellow Americans out of business because of your selfish views.
The court and to CCRC ignored facts and the law as I have pointed out through out this post

The baker was forced out of a huge portion of his business… His right to the pursuit of happiness was snuffed out because of what you desire him to believe.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3192 Aug 28, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the gay men simply asked for a wedding cake. All th
The law is based on common consensus rather than individual feelings. And civil marriage has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
<quoted text>
Commenting on your lack of knowledge and education doesn't marginalize you; your lack of knowledge and education does that. I haven't called for your removal from Topix nor interfered with your ability to express your opinions despite the fact you're unqualified to discuss the topic. Rather than whining about your deficiencies perhaps you should do something to address them.
<quoted text>
It's generally not possible to "win" over the ignorant masses to which you belong because you lack the requisite legal knowledge to understand the issues. You respond based on emotion and ignorance. That's why issues like this, segregation and same sex marriage generally are fought in the legal system.
“No, the gay men simply asked for a wedding cake. All the other emotional baggage you cite is solely the baker's and has nothing to do with the gay men and their request.” Exactly! The

“Unfortunately for you and the baker, anti-discrmiantion laws apply to ALL goods and services, not just those the business owner wishes them applicable to.If the baker sells wedding cakes, he must sell them to ALL customers. If he refuses to sell a wedding cake to gay men, then the refusal is based on their sexual orientation” That’s not true based on the facts of the case.

“thus violates the law since sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado. It doesn't matter whether the business owner would sell other goods and services to the gay men; the refusal to sell the goods and services requested by the gay men triggers a violation of the law.” The First Amendment of our Constitution will cause as exception for the wedding industry.

“Words have meaning and what I've called a lie fits the meaning of the word, whether you like it or not.” Words do have meaning, especially when they are dishonest.

“"literally did nothing to the gay couple" is another lie and a pathetic justification for breaking the law.” Yet the fact remains.

“One wonders why so many of your assertions defending this baker are lies. Perhaps you should seek professional help for what appears to be a rather chronic case of pathological lying.” All you can do is demonize while I stand for the rights of ALL Americans including a baker who holds an Institution to be sacred to him, and despite your belief.

“I took your words at face value so if you don't like my assessment of your position then you have only yourself to blame.” I’m clear and hold no blame.

“Previously asked and answered. Are you now senile in addition to being a pathological liar?” It’s been a long thread… If you answered I apologize for the miss…. Am I correct in that you support prosecuting that gay man for religious discrimination?

“The law is based on common consensus rather than individual feelings. And civil marriage has nothing to do with religious beliefs.” This is where you show dishonesty... Understand I support “gay marriage” now please answer this question as honest as you can…. Why do you want government to make “gay marriage” law?

“Commenting on your lack of knowledge and education doesn't marginalize you; your lack of knowledge and education does that. I haven't called for your removal from Topix nor interfered with your ability to express your opinions despite the fact you're unqualified to discuss the topic. Rather than whining about your deficiencies perhaps you should do something to address them.” LOL… right… I marginalize myself… Keep telling yourself that.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3193 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that YOU use race and religion as an attempt to solidify your position is sad and dishonest.
You are claiming that the Civil Rights Act is illegal.
You have claimed the Hobby Lobby decision supports you.
You still can't show how this wasn't discrimination based on religion.
WHICH IS ILLEGAL!
“The fact that YOU use race and religion as an attempt to solidify your position is sad and dishonest.” I have NEVER used race… Place cite where I did?

“You are claiming that the Civil Rights Act is illegal.” Cite where I stated this?

“You have claimed the Hobby Lobby decision supports you.” Cite where I stated this?

“You still can't show how this wasn't discrimination based on religion.

WHICH IS ILLEGAL!” There was discrimination of the Institution of marriage because of religious and personal beliefs. Based on the First Amendment of our Constitution of the United States the government cannot legislate and force a person to support and participate in that institution.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3194 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>So I have to ask since you seem so brilliant.
What do you think SCOTUS will say about a the constitutionality of the State of Indiana passing a law in 1997 that would jail ministers who perform religious rites?
Why do anti-gay folks defend photographers and bakers for religious freedom but ignore members of clergy?
PLEASE POST THE LAW OF WHICH YOU SPEAK! Or are you just spewing things off the top of your head? I believe this is the 4th time I’ve asked you. Is it a real law? If so post where I can read it.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3195 Aug 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I merely stand for the freedoms of ALL Americans while you continue to argue government punishment for a man you clearly believes different than you.
No, DisRespect, you don't. You stand for the freedoms of those you agree with, and think that Americans with beliefs similar to their own should be able to illegally discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.
The court has already debunked such feeble arguments.
Respect71 wrote:
What I propose doesn’t use government to punish ANYONE, or force ANYONE out of business based on their differing religious views or otherwise.
Sorry, kiddo, if you open a place of public accommodation, you have to serve anyone who chooses to use your services. If they are not breaking the law, being disruptive, are not intoxicated, or are not asking for something that is patently offensive (not just in the eyes of the baker), then there is no justification to deny service. The state only required that if they offer a service, they must do so for everyone. The baker ELECTED to stop baking wedding cakes. The state never forced them to provide a service to anyone.

Your claims would be much more effective if there was a single instance in which they were true.
Respect71 wrote:
You choose to marginalize and demonize, punish and force fellow Americans out of business because of your selfish views.
No, I support all Americans being treated equally, and not being denied service based upon religious discrimination by business owners.
Respect71 wrote:
The court and to CCRC ignored facts and the law as I have pointed out through out this post
The problem is that you don't present facts, you present opinions and claim that they are factual. The reality is that you cannot offer a single way in which providing a wedding cake for a same sex couple infringes upon the free exercise of the baker.
Respect71 wrote:
The baker was forced out of a huge portion of his business…
No, he is a poor businessman, and elected to forego a huge portion of his business rather than provide a service to a single same sex couple.
I agree with you that this has an impact upon the business, and that it was an exceedingly poor choice on the part of the business owner. Apparently bigotry and hatred is more important to him than his business. Ironically his denial of service amounts to the judgement of the couple in question, and is certainly an example of not treating them as he would be treated, which just gos to illustrate his hypocrisy.
Respect71 wrote:
His right to the pursuit of happiness was snuffed out because of what you desire him to believe.
No, DisRespect, he never had a legal right to discriminate, and providing the service would have had no impact whatsoever upon his religious freedom.

If he wanted, he could have charged an exorbitant rate, and given all of the proceeds to charity or the church. He didn't do that.

This man is neither truly Christian, nor is he a good businessman. His argument is utterly without rational basis.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3196 Aug 28, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, DisRespect, you don't. You stand for the freedoms of those you agree with, and think that Americans with beliefs similar to their own should be able to illegally discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.
The court has already debunked such feeble arguments.
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, if you open a place of public accommodation, you have to serve anyone who chooses to use your services. If they are not breaking the law, being disruptive, are not intoxicated, or are not asking for something that is patently offensive (not just in the eyes of the baker), then there is no justification to deny service. The state only required that if they offer a service, they must do so for everyone. The baker ELECTED to stop baking wedding cakes. The state never forced them to provide a service to anyone.
Your claims would be much more effective if there was a single instance in which they were true.
<quoted text>
No, I support all Americans being treated equally, and not being denied service based upon religious discrimination by business owners.
<quoted text>
The problem is that you don't present facts, you present opinions and claim that they are factual. The reality is that you cannot offer a single way in which providing a wedding cake for a same sex couple infringes upon the free exercise of the baker.
<quoted text>
No, he is a poor businessman, and elected to forego a huge portion of his business rather than provide a service to a single same sex couple.
I agree with you that this has an impact upon the business, and that it was an exceedingly poor choice on the part of the business owner. Apparently bigotry and hatred is more important to him than his business. Ironically his denial of service amounts to the judgement of the couple in question, and is certainly an example of not treating them as he would be treated, which just gos to illustrate his hypocrisy.
<quoted text>
No, DisRespect, he never had a legal right to discriminate, and providing the service would have had no impact whatsoever upon his religious freedom.
If he wanted, he could have charged an exorbitant rate, and given all of the proceeds to charity or the church. He didn't do that.
This man is neither truly Christian, nor is he a good businessman. His argument is utterly without rational basis.
Same as before… Your rants will eventually fall upon deaf hears as SCOTUS will be forced to hear a case… Then we will see.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3198 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>RE#3
Which shows that his "religious views" don't really apply.
Really? You don't understand the difference between a customer and a wedding?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3199 Aug 28, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
DisRespect,
hat was childish.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3200 Aug 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Same as before… Your rants will eventually fall upon deaf hears as SCOTUS will be forced to hear a case… Then we will see.
They are increasingly being heard, and well received in court, because those, like yourself, supporting these bigots can't offer an argument that rises to the level of having a rational basis.

You can't offer a single way in which the free exercise of religion of the baker is infringed by providing a cake for someone with differing beliefs, because they would not be infringed by such an action. Claiming that they would cheapens the very free exercise that you claim to defend, as does arguing for businesses to require customers to conform to the religious moral views of the proprietor in order to obtain service.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/27...

The refusal of the court to hear the case of Elane Photography should tell you something, DisRespect.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3201 Aug 28, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
They are increasingly being heard, and well received in court, because those, like yourself, supporting these bigots can't offer an argument that rises to the level of having a rational basis.
You can't offer a single way in which the free exercise of religion of the baker is infringed by providing a cake for someone with differing beliefs, because they would not be infringed by such an action. Claiming that they would cheapens the very free exercise that you claim to defend, as does arguing for businesses to require customers to conform to the religious moral views of the proprietor in order to obtain service.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/27...
The refusal of the court to hear the case of Elane Photography should tell you something, DisRespect.
“supporting these bigots” Sad evidence of your ignorance, hate and bias that causes you to support punishment for the baker.

“The refusal of the court to hear the case of Elane Photography should tell you something, DisRespect.” It tells me the same ignorance, hate and bais that you hold is within our judicial system and has no place there…
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3202 Aug 28, 2014
lides wrote:
The refusal of the court to hear the case of Elane Photography should tell you something, DisRespect.
The refusal of THE court to hear gay marriage cases should tell you something, Justice Dumbass.
It's a state issue.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3203 Aug 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Sad evidence of your ignorance, hate and bias that causes you to support punishment for the baker.
Funny, I am not the one denying people service because of their religious beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
It tells me the same ignorance, hate and bais that you hold is within our judicial system and has no place there…
DisRespect, the long and the short of it is that providing the service in question in no way infringes upon the religious freedom of the baker. This truth was upheld both in court, as well as upon appeal. The high court's refusal to hear the matter of Elane Photography, which has lost in every court in which is has appeared, is a definite indication of where the high court is leaning on this issue.

The long and the short of it is that if you support business owners being allowed to impose a religious test in order to obtain service, by requiring patrons to conform to the religious moral views of the proprietor, you are actually arguing not only against the free exercise of religion, but also of basic free will.

If the baker doesn't want to bake cakes, they are free not to open a place of public accommodation preparing them. If they decide to open such a business, then they are obligated to provide equal services to any client that seeks their services. There are conditions where the business legitimately could refuse service, such as if the patron were intoxicated, unruly, or seeking a service that was patently offensive, but you have been utterly incapable of articulating any such legitimate reason why this baker had a right to deny service.

At the end of the day, you are left with no valid argument whatsoever.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3204 Aug 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“The fact that YOU use race and religion as an attempt to solidify your position is sad and dishonest.” I have NEVER used race… Place cite where I did?
“You are claiming that the Civil Rights Act is illegal.” Cite where I stated this?
“You have claimed the Hobby Lobby decision supports you.” Cite where I stated this?
“You still can't show how this wasn't discrimination based on religion.
WHICH IS ILLEGAL!” There was discrimination of the Institution of marriage because of religious and personal beliefs. Based on the First Amendment of our Constitution of the United States the government cannot legislate and force a person to support and participate in that institution.
There was discrimination of the Institution of marriage because of religious and personal beliefs.
FINALLY you admit this is religious discrimination.

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
Denver tar (Nov '14) 1 hr Nipple Ripper 59
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 2 hr Respect71 26,167
Dr Michelle Herren Prescription for White Power... 4 hr Assquatch 2
The horrible murder of Brandy Duvall. (Aug '11) 15 hr Enough 53
Dump Trump Jan 6 Electoral College Day, For Hum... 19 hr Tex 3
What would happen if the United States ever dec... (Oct '10) 19 hr Tex 212
News Mother, 2 Kids Go Missing In Highlands Ranch 19 hr Chanandra 6

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages