Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 52249 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

#3206 Aug 28, 2014
What does the Bible say about busybodies like this baker who have corrupted Christ's message of forgiveness into one of passing judgement and making lists of the sins of others?

That one I can answer.

Romans 2:1-3
1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?
1 Timothy 5:13
Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.
1 Thessalonians 4:11
For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.
1 Peter 4:15
But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.
Leviticus 19:16
You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the Lord.

Oh wait I keep forgetting that this isn't about religious freedom or discrimination according to Respect71 even though he keeps insisting that it IS about the religious freedom found in Amendment 2.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3207 Aug 28, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, I am not the one denying people service because of their religious beliefs.
<quoted text>
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.
At the end of the day you, back by your hate for who you call “bigots” just because they don’t believe as you, support government punishing them or forcing them out of their livelihood.

I stand for all Americans to live and let live WITHOUT fear of government prosecution for what they believe in.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3208 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>There was discrimination of the Institution of marriage because of religious and personal beliefs.
FINALLY you admit this is religious discrimination.
You support government punishing a man for his religious convictions. You’re quite the American.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3209 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
What does the Bible say about busybodies like this baker who have corrupted Christ's message of forgiveness into one of passing judgement and making lists of the sins of others?
That one I can answer.
Romans 2:1-3
1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?
1 Timothy 5:13
Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.
1 Thessalonians 4:11
For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.
1 Peter 4:15
But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.
Leviticus 19:16
You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the Lord.
Oh wait I keep forgetting that this isn't about religious freedom or discrimination according to Respect71 even though he keeps insisting that it IS about the religious freedom found in Amendment 2.
What does the Bible say? Where in the Bible does it call homosexuality a virtue, or marriage between same sexes a badge of achievement, and where in the Bible does it say allow government to punish those who support homosexuality and same sex marriage?

Since it’s not in there you are a huge proponent, yes?

Are you going to ever post information on that law you keep talking about?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3210 Aug 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
At the end of the day you, back by your hate for who you call “bigots” just because they don’t believe as you, support government punishing them or forcing them out of their livelihood.
Sorry, kiddo, they are the one's denying service. Oddly enough, it could be argued that the government is pointing out that they can make more money.

You have yet to indicate any way that providing the service infringes upon their religious freedom; just as you have failed to prove that they have a right to impose a religious moral standard onto customers in order to obtain service. At the end of the day, it appears that you hate actual freedom.
Respect71 wrote:
I stand for all Americans to live and let live WITHOUT fear of government prosecution for what they believe in.
They weren't persecuted for what they believe in. They were tried for breaking the law, and they lost. It turns out, they did break the law, and rather than come into compliance by providing the service, which the judge correctly pointed out would be a windfall for their business, they elected instead to stop providing the service altogether, proving that bigotry was more important than their business to them.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3211 Aug 28, 2014
Part 1 of 2
Respect71 wrote:
Exactly! The
Unfortunately for you and the baker, Colorado's anti-discrmination law doesn't allow owners of public accommodations to assert their emotional baggage as a valid justification for refusing service to a member of the general public that's also a member of a protected class.
Respect71 wrote:
That’s not true based on the facts of the case.
It is true. That's how an administrative judge ruled and the ruling was upheld by the Commission. As I said, just because you and the baker believe the lie that he was discriminating against an "event" that is incapable of actually ordering a wedding cake, it doesn't mean everyone else has to believe your lie.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.”

[QUOTE who="Respect71"]The First Amendment of our Constitution will cause as exception for the wedding industry.
It hasn't yet. And SCOTUS has never ruled such an exception exists in previous cases and they just turned an opportunity to make such a ruling when they denied the appeal of the photographer in New Mexico. But do keep a stiff upper lip and hang on to that thread of hope if it consoles you.
Respect71 wrote:
Words do have meaning, especially when they are dishonest.
Many of your assertions have been dishonest.
Respect71 wrote:
“"literally did nothing to the gay couple" is another lie and a pathetic justification for breaking the law.” Yet the fact remains.
Yes the fact remains your assertion that the baker "literally did nothing to the gay couple" is a lie and pathetic justification for breaking the law.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.”

[QUOTE who="Respect71"]All you can do is demonize
If you don't like to be called a liar perhaps you should consider not lying. It does not "demonize" you to accurate describe your actions.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
So you erroneously think all Americans have the right to ignore and be above the law? That says a lot about you. And nothing good.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3212 Aug 28, 2014
Part 2 of 2
Respect71 wrote:
I’m clear and hold no blame.
Then you obviously have no legitimate complaint about my interpretation of your words.
Respect71 wrote:
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?
Yes, if the stated reason for refusing service was because of the religion of the prospective customer (and religion is a protected class under all anti-discrmination laws of which I'm aware). Keep in mind, however, the law distinguishes between baking a cake and embellishing a cake with written messages and/or symbols; the former is not considered compelled speech while the later would be and can be a legitimate reason for refusing to comply with the specific request for service. So a gay baker could refuse to write the message "God hates f*gs" on the cake as compelled speech but could not refuse to bake a plain cake or one without offensive messages or symbols. Further, unlike you oft asserted lie, the law does not distinguish nor give exemption for the purpose or event in which the cake will be served.
Respect71 wrote:
“The law is based on common consensus rather than individual feelings. And civil marriage has nothing to do with religious beliefs.”
[QUOTE who="Respect71"]This is where you show dishonesty...
How so? Are laws not passed by majority vote of either elected representatives of popular vote? Does this not represent "common consensus"? To be clear, however, neither majority vote nor common consensus can protect or save a law that is contrary to a state or the federal constitution.
Respect71 wrote:
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?
I'm not seeking to have the government "make gay marriage law". I'm exercising my constitutional right to petition government to redress a grievance via the judicial system. Specifically, I'm asking the courts to evaluate the constitutionality of the restriction in marriage laws limiting it to one man and one woman because I believe that restriction violates constitutional equal protection and due process as well as infringes the fundamental right of gays to marry.
Respect71 wrote:
LOL… right… I marginalize myself… Keep telling yourself that.
I don't need to; you prove my point most every time you post.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3213 Aug 28, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? You don't understand the difference between a customer and a wedding?
Did the wedding try to buy a cake? No, two gay men did. The baker refused service to two gay men wishing to buy a wedding cake; the baker didn't refuse a request by a same sex wedding to buy a wedding cake.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3214 Aug 28, 2014
Wondering wrote:
The refusal of THE court to hear gay marriage cases should tell you something, Justice Dumbass.
It's a state issue.
SCOTUS accepted and ruled on two same sex marriage cases in its session ending in June 2013. No such cases were appealed to SCOTUS in the term ending in June 2014. And now already there are 3 or 4 cases that have been appealed for the term starting in October and more appeals will likely arrive before the end of the term in June 2015.

But thanks for lying. Again.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3215 Aug 28, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Did the wedding try to buy a cake? No, two gay men did. The baker refused service to two gay men wishing to buy a wedding cake; the baker didn't refuse a request by a same sex wedding to buy a wedding cake.
Wondering is increasingly confused in the difference between persons and businesses, or persons and events. They aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3216 Aug 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You support government punishing a man for his religious convictions. You’re quite the American.
UP YOURS you lying POS.
It has been ME objecting to a law that would jail ministers for performing SSM not YOU.

You have spent MONTHS on here traded nasty barbs with Lides while IGNORING a law passed 10 years ago.

Your silence on a law that would jail ministers for performing SSM speaks VOLUMES.

It has been ME pointing out that your guy even ADMITTED he was wrong.

And it has been YOU who has failed to show how this guy was punished by the GOVT.

His faith WAS protected. He was able to follow it. What he was DENIED was his claim to use it to deny rights to others or as an excuse to ignore States Rights like Public Accommodation laws.

The 2nd Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom does not mean that such freedom can be used to deny the rights of individuals and States found in the 9th and 10th Amendments. All 3 are to serve as a balance between individual freedoms and the States rights to set limits on those freedoms.

One last thing. For months you have been insisting with me this isn't religious discrimination because it's about his views on marriage. So when you wrote, "You support government punishing a man for his religious convictions" you just contradicted nearly every point you've been making to me and Lides for 6 months now.
I knew if I gave you enough rope you'd hang yourself out to dry. Not only did you do that you ironed and folded too!

Well done IDIOT!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3217 Aug 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Indiana's marriage ban, passed in 1997 makes it a crime for a member of clergy to perform even a religious SSM. They can be jailed for 180 days and fined $1000.00.

The fact that you are TOO DAMN LAZY TO LOOK IT UP YOURSELF isn't my fault.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3218 Aug 28, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? You don't understand the difference between a customer and a wedding?
I do.

Do you and this baker and Respect71?

Why do the two of you keep insisting this isn't about religious discrimination but then say the guy is being punished for his religious views?

Are you both dumber than Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh?

You two want to argue States Rights when it comes to defending marriage bans but then want to ignore those same States Rights when someone tries to use religion to ignore laws.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3219 Aug 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You support government punishing a man for his religious convictions. You’re quite the American.
YUP and I'm damn proud I am.
Religious convictions don't give anyone the right to ignore States Rights or Federal Law.

This guy did both. He'd ignored Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Law as well Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act.

Once again I thank you for finally admitting this is about religious discrimination and not the mental gymnastic BS you swallowed form this two faced guy and his legal team.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3220 Aug 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do the two of you keep insisting this isn't about religious discrimination but then say the guy is being punished for his religious views?
Religious discrimination? I never said that. I said there was no discrimination since the two men were regular customers and never denied service. The baker is being punished for adhering to his religion. Same with the florist and photographer.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3221 Aug 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, they are the one's denying service. Oddly enough, it could be argued that the government is pointing out that they can make more money.
You have yet to indicate any way that providing the service infringes upon their religious freedom; just as you have failed to prove that they have a right to impose a religious moral standard onto customers in order to obtain service. At the end of the day, it appears that you hate actual freedom.
<quoted text>
They weren't persecuted for what they believe in. They were tried for breaking the law, and they lost. It turns out, they did break the law, and rather than come into compliance by providing the service, which the judge correctly pointed out would be a windfall for their business, they elected instead to stop providing the service altogether, proving that bigotry was more important than their business to them.
Repeating, spinning, and justifying you stance doesn’t change the facts…

You, backed by your hatred, support government punishment for a man who doesn’t believe the same as you, while I stand for ALL Americans to hold and believe to their convictions WITHOUT fear of punishment.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3222 Aug 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for you and the baker, Colorado's anti-discrmination law doesn't allow owners of public accommodations to assert their emotional baggage as a valid justification for refusing service to a member of the general public that's also a member of a protected class.
<quoted text>
It is true. That's how an administrative judge ruled and the ruling was upheld by the Commission. As I said, just because you and the baker believe the lie that he was discriminating against an "event" that is incapable of actually ordering a wedding cake, it doesn't mean everyone else has to believe your lie.
<quoted text>
It hasn't yet. And SCOTUS has never ruled such an exception exists in previous cases and they just turned an opportunity to make such a ruling when they denied the appeal of the photographer in New Mexico. But do keep a stiff upper lip and hang on to that thread of hope if it consoles you.
<quoted text>
Many of your assertions have been dishonest.
<quoted text>
Yes the fact remains your assertion that the baker "literally did nothing to the gay couple" is a lie and pathetic justification for breaking the law.
<quoted text>
If you don't like to be called a liar perhaps you should consider not lying. It does not "demonize" you to accurate describe your actions.
<quoted text>
So you erroneously think all Americans have the right to ignore and be above the law? That says a lot about you. And nothing good.
Do you believe that gay Americans have the right to get married even in states where the law doesn’t recognize or even bands such marriages? Do they have the right to do so and break the law because you believe as human beings they have the right to be with who they love?

Like it or not, the baker has the same right to hold to his convictions and beliefs because of our Constitution. Same as gays.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3223 Aug 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
<quoted text>
Then you obviously have no legitimate complaint about my interpretation of your words.
<quoted text>
Yes, if the stated reason for refusing service was because of the religion of the prospective customer (and religion is a protected class under all anti-discrmination laws of which I'm aware). Keep in mind, however, the law distinguishes between baking a cake and embellishing a cake with written messages and/or symbols; the former is not considered compelled speech while the later would be and can be a legitimate reason for refusing to comply with the specific request for service. So a gay baker could refuse to write the message "God hates f*gs" on the cake as compelled speech but could not refuse to bake a plain cake or one without offensive messages or symbols. Further, unlike you oft asserted lie, the law does not distinguish nor give exemption for the purpose or event in which the cake will be served.
<quoted text>
How so? Are laws not passed by majority vote of either elected representatives of popular vote? Does this not represent "common consensus"? To be clear, however, neither majority vote nor common consensus can protect or save a law that is contrary to a state or the federal constitution.
<quoted text>
I'm not seeking to have the government "make gay marriage law". I'm exercising my constitutional right to petition government to redress a grievance via the judicial system. Specifically, I'm asking the courts to evaluate the constitutionality of the restriction in marriage laws limiting it to one man and one woman because I believe that restriction violates constitutional equal protection and due process as well as infringes the fundamental right of gays to marry.
<quoted text>
I don't need to; you prove my point most every time you post.
As do you…
You state “restriction violates constitutional equal protection and due process as well as infringes the fundamental right of gays to marry.” Where does that “fundamental right of gays to marry.” come from? Because in many states there are restrictions and laws in place… So what gives you the right to object to said laws?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3224 Aug 29, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>UP YOURS you lying POS.
It has been ME objecting to a law that would jail ministers for performing SSM not YOU.
You have spent MONTHS on here traded nasty barbs with Lides while IGNORING a law passed 10 years ago.
Your silence on a law that would jail ministers for performing SSM speaks VOLUMES.
It has been ME pointing out that your guy even ADMITTED he was wrong.
And it has been YOU who has failed to show how this guy was punished by the GOVT.
His faith WAS protected. He was able to follow it. What he was DENIED was his claim to use it to deny rights to others or as an excuse to ignore States Rights like Public Accommodation laws.
The 2nd Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom does not mean that such freedom can be used to deny the rights of individuals and States found in the 9th and 10th Amendments. All 3 are to serve as a balance between individual freedoms and the States rights to set limits on those freedoms.
One last thing. For months you have been insisting with me this isn't religious discrimination because it's about his views on marriage. So when you wrote, "You support government punishing a man for his religious convictions" you just contradicted nearly every point you've been making to me and Lides for 6 months now.
I knew if I gave you enough rope you'd hang yourself out to dry. Not only did you do that you ironed and folded too!
Well done IDIOT!
You obviously hate people who don’t believe as you do and I’m sure it makes you feel better to call them names like “IDIOT!”, and all I can say to that is it’s sad that you feel you need to impose your thoughts and beliefs upon others through government means.

I stand for the freedom of ALL Americans, even the ones you feel are “IDIOT!”s.

P.S. I believe you mean the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom, not the 2nd.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3225 Aug 29, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>YUP and I'm damn proud I am.
Religious convictions don't give anyone the right to ignore States Rights or Federal Law.
This guy did both. He'd ignored Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Law as well Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act.
Once again I thank you for finally admitting this is about religious discrimination and not the mental gymnastic BS you swallowed form this two faced guy and his legal team.
“YUP and I'm damn proud I am.
Religious convictions don't give anyone the right to ignore States Rights or Federal Law.” But if you’re gay it’s okay to ignore State and Federal Laws in regards to marriage, you just can’t do it on a religious basis?

“This guy did both. He'd ignored Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Law as well Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act.” If he was gay and refused husband and wife couples it would be okay then right?

“Once again I thank you for finally admitting this is about religious discrimination and not the mental gymnastic BS you swallowed form this two faced guy and his legal team.” Thank you for clarifying who you feel is exempt from law and who you think deserve to be punished.

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) 3 hr ReplaceGOP 29,233
News 'Fired by tweet:' Troops, veterans react to tra... 3 hr The Troll Stopper 12
Sally Ann Woods aka Sally Ann Chao aka Sally A... Wed Floored 1
Nicole DuBois Savage Wed Jamie Dundee 18
need black? Jul 25 inthemiddle 1
Respect71 is a hypocritical LOSER (Dec '15) Jul 23 MAGA 7
Constant Connect for Black tar and China White ... (Nov '16) Jul 23 Kincaid13 29

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages