Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 48088 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.

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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3226 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Repeating, spinning, and justifying you stance doesn’t change the facts…
DisRespect, you are the one repeating, spinning, and justifying. You have never presented a fact. The baker was never forced to do anything, they elected to stop selling wedding cakes, when the state invited them to comply with the law.

The FACT of the matter remains that you are arguing in favor of someone who broke the law.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
I don't hate anyone, and I support religious freedom.

You, on the other hand, support a business being able to project their religious moral beliefs onto their customers by allowing a business to apply a religious litmus test to ensure that the customer is in compliance with the business owner's interpretation of their beliefs in order to obtain service.

You don't support all Americans, only those you happen to agree with. I support the business owner's right to free speech and free exercise, neither of which are impacted by providing a service to someone with different beliefs.

Applying your logic, a southern lunch counter owner who feels black people are lesser could refuse service, or a KKK member could refuse service to a Jew. For that matter, I could refuse service to you because I dislike stupid people.

The ironic part is that you fail to see the clear and present danger your rhetoric poses to religious freedom, including your own.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3227 Aug 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
DisRespect, you are the one repeating, spinning, and justifying. You have never presented a fact. The baker was never forced to do anything, they elected to stop selling wedding cakes, when the state invited them to comply with the law.
The FACT of the matter remains that you are arguing in favor of someone who broke the law.
<quoted text>
I don't hate anyone, and I support religious freedom.
You, on the other hand, support a business being able to project their religious moral beliefs onto their customers by allowing a business to apply a religious litmus test to ensure that the customer is in compliance with the business owner's interpretation of their beliefs in order to obtain service.
You don't support all Americans, only those you happen to agree with. I support the business owner's right to free speech and free exercise, neither of which are impacted by providing a service to someone with different beliefs.
Applying your logic, a southern lunch counter owner who feels black people are lesser could refuse service, or a KKK member could refuse service to a Jew. For that matter, I could refuse service to you because I dislike stupid people.
The ironic part is that you fail to see the clear and present danger your rhetoric poses to religious freedom, including your own.
Everything you just posted is contradicted by your previous posts.

And the FACT that you attempt over and over to justify your position with numerous analogies and angles with the end result of insulting me shows you have hatred towards American freedom, and those who believe different than yourself.

“The FACT of the matter remains that you are arguing in favor of someone who broke the law.” And you support the gay couple being “gay married” in a state where the law is civil union for them. Are they breaking the law? Shall we prosecute them?

Once again I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to explain: What is the “clear and present danger” of one baker who reserved his wedding cakes for a husband and wife institution?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3228 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Everything you just posted is contradicted by your previous posts.
This should be priceless. Somewhat like watching a dog eat peanut butter.
Respect71 wrote:
And the FACT that you attempt over and over to justify your position with numerous analogies and angles with the end result of insulting me shows you have hatred towards American freedom, and those who believe different than yourself.
The fact remains, that the baker's rights were never threatened, and they would not be violated by providing the service. You haven't been able to prove to the contrary, in fact you have not so much as attempted to do so.
You are clearly out of your depth.
Respect71 wrote:
And you support the gay couple being “gay married” in a state where the law is civil union for them.

If they elect to marry in another state, which they did, that is their right. It has no bearing upon their right to seek services at a place of public accommodation.
Respect71 wrote:
Are they breaking the law?

They did not break the law, the baker did.
Respect71 wrote:
Shall we prosecute them?
Do you really support prosecuting those who have broken no law?
Respect71 wrote:
Once again I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to explain: What is the “clear and present danger” of one baker who reserved his wedding cakes for a husband and wife institution?
If you are too dim to see the danger of allowing a business to put in place a religious test in order to obtain services, then you are dimmer than I have given you credit for being.

The baker has the right to refuse to bake wedding cakes altogether. He doesn't have the right to discriminate, offering the service to some while refusing to serve others.

If I were a baker, could I refuse to serve you because I don't like bigots? Of course not.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3229 Aug 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
This should be priceless. Somewhat like watching a dog eat peanut butter.
<quoted text>
The fact remains, that the baker's rights were never threatened, and they would not be violated by providing the service. You haven't been able to prove to the contrary, in fact you have not so much as attempted to do so.
You are clearly out of your depth.
<quoted text>
If they elect to marry in another state, which they did, that is their right. It has no bearing upon their right to seek services at a place of public accommodation.
<quoted text>
They did not break the law, the baker did.
<quoted text>
Do you really support prosecuting those who have broken no law?
<quoted text>
If you are too dim to see the danger of allowing a business to put in place a religious test in order to obtain services, then you are dimmer than I have given you credit for being.
The baker has the right to refuse to bake wedding cakes altogether. He doesn't have the right to discriminate, offering the service to some while refusing to serve others.
If I were a baker, could I refuse to serve you because I don't like bigots? Of course not.
“The fact remains, that the baker's rights were never threatened,” He no longer sells wedding cakes and the was government forced, not by choice.

“Do you really support prosecuting those who have broken no law?” Let’s just say for arguments sake that we are in Indiana, where this couple is breaking the law? Shall we prosecute them?

The baker has a First Amendment right to support and participate in a wedding institution of his choosing and the government is not allowed to force him otherwise.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3230 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
He no longer sells wedding cakes and the was government forced, not by choice.
His denial of service was against the law.
Do you really think that those who break the law should not answer for their actions?
Respect71 wrote:
Let’s just say for arguments sake that we are in Indiana, where this couple is breaking the law?
They still aren't breaking the law if they marry in another state.
Respect71 wrote:
Shall we prosecute them?
Once again, I don't support prosecuting those who haven't broken the law. You keep advancing that inept position.
Respect71 wrote:
The baker has a First Amendment right to support and participate in a wedding institution of his choosing and the government is not allowed to force him otherwise.
Providing the cake is neither participation in, or endorsement of, the union or the relationship.
Providing the service does not prevent the baker from holding his beliefs, it doesn't prevent him from worshiping at the church of his choosing, it doesn't force him to enter into a union he disapproves of, it merely requires him to perform the service his business exists to provide.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3231 Aug 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
His denial of service was against the law.
Do you really think that those who break the law should not answer for their actions?
<quoted text>
They still aren't breaking the law if they marry in another state.
<quoted text>
Once again, I don't support prosecuting those who haven't broken the law. You keep advancing that inept position.
<quoted text>
Providing the cake is neither participation in, or endorsement of, the union or the relationship.
Providing the service does not prevent the baker from holding his beliefs, it doesn't prevent him from worshiping at the church of his choosing, it doesn't force him to enter into a union he disapproves of, it merely requires him to perform the service his business exists to provide.
“They still aren't breaking the law if they marry in another state.” You utter dishonesty is astounding!

Again I will continue to stand for ALL Americans to hold their beliefs and do so without fear of government prosecution.

You, on the other hand will continue to twist and slip and skew any true argument, then call me names (because I stand for our Constitutional freedom) and you will press to prosecute and put out of business those who don’t agree with you views.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3232 Aug 29, 2014
lides wrote:
Providing the cake is neither participation in, or endorsement of, the union or the relationship.
That's just misguided opinion, and it's 'wedding' not 'relationship.'

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3233 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
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?
Yes, because the prohibitions against same sex marriages are unconstitutional.

Respect71 wrote:
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?
Since one can't become civilly married without a civil marriage license and the states that prohibit same sex marriage don't issue civil marriage licenses to same sex couples, it's not possible for same sex couples to "break the law" in these states by marrying. Sure, they can have a religious wedding ceremony and refer to themselves as married but without legal recognition by the state it does nothing to obtain the privileges and legal benefits of civil marriage nor impose the corresponding legal responsibilities.

Same sex couples that have civilly married in states that give legal recognition to same sex marriage that subsequently move to states that do not recognize such marriages may exercise their constitutional right to petition government to redress that grievance. And that's happening in those states and they're being joined by gay residents that wish to marry without having to move or go to another state to do so. This is the process provided by our constitution to address such issues. However, the same sex couples wed in other states are not treated as married by the states prohibiting such marriages so they still have broken no state laws while the litigation is ongoing.
Respect71 wrote:
Like it or not, the baker has the same right to hold to his convictions and beliefs because of our Constitution. Same as gays.
The baker is welcome to exercise his constitutional right to petition government to redress his grievance regarding his religious beliefs. I've never said otherwise. I've simply tried to educate you (to no avail) on the current status of constitutional law as it pertains to the baker's position and your defense of it. You willfully ignore existing legal precedent that directly applies to the situation of the baker and instead stupidly assert from willful ignorance that freedom of religion is absolute in this instance. It's not. Further, you you lie and completely mischaracterize the nature and application of anti-discrmination laws in order to reach your erroneous and laughable conclusions (the baker is discriminating against an event or institution).

Some people seek knowledge; others revel in ignorance. In this particular instance, you are one of the latter and not one of the former.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3234 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
As do you…
Yes, I prove my points by citing relevant law and legal precedents. Unlike your points which are based primarily on wishful thinking.
Respect71 wrote:
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?
All citizens have the fundamental right to marry. Fundamental rights are inherent to all people and not predicated upon being specifically granted by the state. Instead such rights exist because they are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" as articulated in SCOTUS rulings in Palko v. Connecticut and Moore v. East Cleveland respectively. Further note SCOTUS has never placed qualifiers on who may marry but rather case law consistently demonstrates they have struck down laws that restrict marriage based that have no compelling state interest to support the restrictions such as race, criminal status, or compliance with child support payment orders.

Respect71 wrote:
Because in many states there are restrictions and laws in place… So what gives you the right to object to said laws?
Every citizen can exercising their freedom of speech and object to laws. Every citizen can exercise their constitutional right to petition government via legislative lobbying or via the judicial system to challenge laws they deem wrong or unconstitutional.

Again, you conflate my citation of current legal precedent against the baker's assertion of exemption from anti-disrmination laws based on religious beliefs with your erroneous assumption that I've asserted the baker has no legal or constitutional recourse. That's simply not true.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3235 Aug 29, 2014
lides wrote:
I don't hate anyone, and I support religious freedom.
You said that you hate people that don't share your view of equality.
You don't support the 1st amendment.

That would make you a liar, twice.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3236 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.
He never denied service?

Um what about the cake he refused to sell them?

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3237 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“They still aren't breaking the law if they marry in another state.” You utter dishonesty is astounding!
Actually, your utter stupidity is both sad and pathetic.
Respect71 wrote:
Again I will continue to stand for ALL Americans to hold their beliefs and do so without fear of government prosecution.
So if someone believes you are a tragic waste of the planet's oxygen who deserves to die, you'd support that person acting on their belief without fear of government prosecution. Got it. That would likely result in a lot of chaos and anarchy but hey, that's a small price to pay for not being punished for holding and aging upon your beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
You, on the other hand will continue to twist and slip and skew any true argument
Please. You've yet to posit any "true argument" grounded in legal reality.

Respect71 wrote:
then call me names (because I stand for our Constitutional freedom)
Sticks and stones...
Respect71 wrote:
and you will press to prosecute and put out of business those who don’t agree with you views.
You really seem to struggle to understand the difference between one's personal "views" and actual laws that are on the books. Grow up and quit playing these childish games.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3238 Aug 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, because the prohibitions against same sex marriages are unconstitutional.
<quoted text>
Since one can't become civilly married without a civil marriage license and the states that prohibit same sex marriage don't issue civil marriage licenses to same sex couples, it's not possible for same sex couples to "break the law" in these states by marrying. Sure, they can have a religious wedding ceremony and refer to themselves as married but without legal recognition by the state it does nothing to obtain the privileges and legal benefits of civil marriage nor impose the corresponding legal responsibilities.
Same sex couples that have civilly married in states that give legal recognition to same sex marriage that subsequently move to states that do not recognize such marriages may exercise their constitutional right to petition government to redress that grievance. And that's happening in those states and they're being joined by gay residents that wish to marry without having to move or go to another state to do so. This is the process provided by our constitution to address such issues. However, the same sex couples wed in other states are not treated as married by the states prohibiting such marriages so they still have broken no state laws while the litigation is ongoing.
<quoted text>
The baker is welcome to exercise his constitutional right to petition government to redress his grievance regarding his religious beliefs. I've never said otherwise. I've simply tried to educate you (to no avail) on the current status of constitutional law as it pertains to the baker's position and your defense of it. You willfully ignore existing legal precedent that directly applies to the situation of the baker and instead stupidly assert from willful ignorance that freedom of religion is absolute in this instance. It's not. Further, you you lie and completely mischaracterize the nature and application of anti-discrmination laws in order to reach your erroneous and laughable conclusions (the baker is discriminating against an event or institution).
Some people seek knowledge; others revel in ignorance. In this particular instance, you are one of the latter and not one of the former.
The point is if you believe laws and amendments in these States that do not accommodate “gay Marriage” un-Constitutional, even though they have such laws; then what makes you believe the baker or photographer (whoever in the wedding industry) don’t have a leg to stand on when a case goes to SCOTUS?

So far the rulings have been solely based upon bias and opinion that makes it look as though the baker has broken the law. The reality is that government can’t force the baker to use his talents to support and participate in a celebration of an institution that he doesn’t support or believe in. Now he’s lost the portion of his income. Affectively loosing his right to the pursuit of happiness.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3239 Aug 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Your 2nd sentence and 4th contradict each other.

And to claim he never denied them service? Did he bake the cake? NO

So you lied again by claiming they were never denied service.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3240 Aug 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I prove my points by citing relevant law and legal precedents. Unlike your points which are based primarily on wishful thinking.
<quoted text>
All citizens have the fundamental right to marry. Fundamental rights are inherent to all people and not predicated upon being specifically granted by the state. Instead such rights exist because they are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" as articulated in SCOTUS rulings in Palko v. Connecticut and Moore v. East Cleveland respectively. Further note SCOTUS has never placed qualifiers on who may marry but rather case law consistently demonstrates they have struck down laws that restrict marriage based that have no compelling state interest to support the restrictions such as race, criminal status, or compliance with child support payment orders.
<quoted text>
Every citizen can exercising their freedom of speech and object to laws. Every citizen can exercise their constitutional right to petition government via legislative lobbying or via the judicial system to challenge laws they deem wrong or unconstitutional.
Again, you conflate my citation of current legal precedent against the baker's assertion of exemption from anti-disrmination laws based on religious beliefs with your erroneous assumption that I've asserted the baker has no legal or constitutional recourse. That's simply not true.
And I cite the First Amendment of out Constitution.

Because of the NATURE of the business... The wedding industry will eventually be found EXEMPT from such accommodation laws.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3241 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You are still ignoring the law in Indiana.
Hypocrite.
Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings
http://americablog.com/2013/07/indiana-makes-...

Ya bitched when I didn't provide you the story or link and now that I have you do just what I claimed. You IGNORE it.

Hypocrite.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3242 Aug 29, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>He never denied service?
Um what about the cake he refused to sell them?
??? you’re replying to yourself?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3243 Aug 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, your utter stupidity is both sad and pathetic.
<quoted text>
So if someone believes you are a tragic waste of the planet's oxygen who deserves to die, you'd support that person acting on their belief without fear of government prosecution. Got it. That would likely result in a lot of chaos and anarchy but hey, that's a small price to pay for not being punished for holding and aging upon your beliefs.
<quoted text>
Please. You've yet to posit any "true argument" grounded in legal reality.
<quoted text>
Sticks and stones...
<quoted text>
You really seem to struggle to understand the difference between one's personal "views" and actual laws that are on the books. Grow up and quit playing these childish games.
“Actually, your utter stupidity is both sad and pathetic.” No rational argument? That’s a surprise.

“So if someone believes you are a tragic waste of the planet's oxygen who deserves to die, you'd support that person acting on their belief without fear of government prosecution. Got it. That would likely result in a lot of chaos and anarchy but hey, that's a small price to pay for not being punished for holding and aging upon your beliefs.” Again... No rational argument. The baker did nothing to the gay couple to infringe on any rights guaranteed by our Constitution... His belief is sound and you can’t change his belief with government punishment.

“Please. You've yet to posit any "true argument" grounded in legal reality.” The First Amendment of our Constitution... A case will go to SCOTUS.

“You really seem to struggle to understand the difference between one's personal "views" and actual laws that are on the books. Grow up and quit playing these childish games.” May I ask why you’re replying to this particular post when it was directed toward someone else?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3244 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I cite the First Amendment of out Constitution.
Because of the NATURE of the business... The wedding industry will eventually be found EXEMPT from such accommodation laws.
Keep reading... I addressed it.

Try not to be so angry.

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) 7 min ReplaceGOP 28,192
Devil Clown Inc. Big Top Saloon (Dec '11) 7 hr Ricky F 3,434
Women Wed Ellen 1
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) Tue JP MORGAN 717
last post wins! (Feb '11) Apr 25 _FLATLINE-------- 26,290
Opiates Apr 24 Hetmcb21 4
The horrible murder of Brandy Duvall. (Aug '11) Apr 24 Autumnlove 55

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages