Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 48141 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

#3265 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Long winded...
It happens when you have actual knowledge of the subject matter. Perhaps that why your posts are always so short.
Respect71 wrote:
Government cannot force a shop owner to support and participate in something he/she doesn't believe in.
Running a business is a regulated privilege, not a constitutional right. If one doesn't wish to comply with the law, one is not forced to remain in business.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s sad you support such policies against fellow Americans.
On the contrary, it's sad you justify law breaking for only certain people in certain businesses holding certain beliefs. You obviously have no f-ing clue what equal protection of the law really means. And even more sad, you're too stupid to even fake it.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3266 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
None have occurred yet!
If you're referring to cases of wedding vendors that claim exemption from serving gays and same sex weddings because of their religious beliefs, once again you're wrong. Many such cases have occurred already and one appeal of a state supreme court ruling against the wedding vendor has already been turned down by SCOTUS.
Respect71 wrote:
A case will go to SCOTUS
By all means, do hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3267 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
There you have it...
Indeed. Yet another example of your inability to actually respond to the contents of someone else's post with any modicum of intelligence.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3268 Aug 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The nature of marriage falls into the wedding industry category! News flash not all of the wedding industry is religious.
So? The baker in question isn't even exclusively a wedding vendor religious or otherwise, your lies to the contrary notwithstanding.
Respect71 wrote:
However, marriage means something to everyone and per the first amendment of our constitution Americans have the right to choose.
Yes, the right to choose their own religious beliefs and apply those beliefs to themselves, not to inflict them on others.

Respect71 wrote:
The government doesn't force churches to marry gays so why should they force the wedding industry to provide wedding services for gays?
Because churches are generally organized as tax exempt private entities that set their own membership requirements and standards of conduct. As such, they aren't deemed public accommodations and thus exempt from public accommodation laws. That's why the Boy Scouts were able to exclude gays as members: because they are a private membership organization.
Respect71 wrote:
If you think serving a hamburger is the same as designing, baking and setup up of a wedding cake then you are being grossly dishonest or radically stupid.
On the contrary, this is just another example of your pigheaded blindness to the implications of your own assertions:

Only wedding vendors deserve exemptions from public accommodation laws.

Apparently only the food craft of baking wedding cakes rises to the level of "design" and skill you personally deem sufficient to be deserving of exemption from public accommodation laws. Never mind if a chef runs a catering business, has religious beliefs and doesn't wish to "celebrate" or "participate" in same sex weddings.

And if someone as sincerely held religious beliefs against interracial marriage, well screw them because they likewise don't deserve exemption from public accommodation laws because apparently only religious prejudice against gays is worthy of publicly sanctioned discrimination.

What a f-ing, ignorant *sswipe you are.
Respect71 wrote:
Chick-fil-a does just fine as a religious organization, serves everyone because of their industry!
Well, Chick-Fil-A has been accused of discriminating against gays in employment in the past but since most states still lack laws prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, they've not been prosecuted nor needed a religious exemption from the law. Regardless, this demonstrates once again the sheer hypocrisy and inconsistency of your position.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3269 Aug 30, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“They still aren't breaking the law if they marry in another state.” You utter dishonesty is astounding!
There is nothing dishonest in saying that those who choose to marry in a state other than that in which they reside have not broken the law. To imply otherwise is a lie.
Respect71 wrote:
Again I will continue to stand for ALL Americans to hold their beliefs and do so without fear of government prosecution.
No, DisRespect, you don't. You craft lies to support your bigoted views.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
No, I simply support equality under the law for all, which includes the ability to seek services from places of public accommodation.

You, on the other hand, seek to create loopholes where business owners can deny service to people. You, basically, seek a return to segregation, albeit not via race.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3271 Sep 1, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean like baking a cake?
<quoted text>
Churches are private clubs, not businesses open to the public.
<quoted text>
What's the relevant difference?
<quoted text>
Chick-fil-a isn't a religious organization; it's a business.
“Oh, you mean like baking a cake?” I mean the owners and operators of wedding industry shops aren’t all people of faith.

“Churches are private clubs, not businesses open to the public.” Both are open o the public and both have religious rights.

“What's the relevant difference?” The 16 year old McDonald’s worker doesn’t sent 5-6 hours with a couple planning the look and design of the big mac he’s going to prepare for them, then spend a day cooking and frying and putting the big mac together and another couple few hours delivering and setting it up for the couple and wait until there’s an okay of how that big mac looks. Not to mention the celebration of what the wedding Big Mac is created for… the institution of marriage.

“Chick-fil-a isn't a religious organization; it's a business.” Chick-Fil-A is absolutely a religious organization that holds a higher standard than many businesses and for you to suggest otherwise further shows your ignorance.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3272 Sep 1, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
It happens when you have actual knowledge of the subject matter. Perhaps that why your posts are always so short.
<quoted text>
Running a business is a regulated privilege, not a constitutional right. If one doesn't wish to comply with the law, one is not forced to remain in business.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it's sad you justify law breaking for only certain people in certain businesses holding certain beliefs. You obviously have no f-ing clue what equal protection of the law really means. And even more sad, you're too stupid to even fake it.
“It happens when you have actual knowledge of the subject matter. Perhaps that why your posts are always so short.” Or why yours are long winded.

“Running a business is a regulated privilege, not a constitutional right. If one doesn't wish to comply with the law, one is not forced to remain in business.” Running a business is afforded to any American who so desires… Government overreaches when they force an American to use their talents to support and participate in a institution they don’t believe in.

“On the contrary, it's sad you justify law breaking for only certain people in certain businesses holding certain beliefs. You obviously have no f-ing clue what equal protection of the law really means. And even more sad, you're too stupid to even fake it.” LOL if all you can do is call me stupid to justify your stance on punishing another American for doing absolutely nothing to the gay couple, then so be it. My stance is clear.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3273 Sep 1, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're referring to cases of wedding vendors that claim exemption from serving gays and same sex weddings because of their religious beliefs, once again you're wrong. Many such cases have occurred already and one appeal of a state supreme court ruling against the wedding vendor has already been turned down by SCOTUS.
<quoted text>
By all means, do hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
Turned down? LOL… Not one case has been heard by SCOUS and it one will have to in order to settle these many disputes. Just like ‘gay marriage”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3274 Sep 1, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. Yet another example of your inability to actually respond to the contents of someone else's post with any modicum of intelligence.
And you example of demining and ridiculing someone you disagree with… If there was a law I’m sure you would have me punished.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3276 Sep 1, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing dishonest in saying that those who choose to marry in a state other than that in which they reside have not broken the law. To imply otherwise is a lie.
<quoted text>
No, DisRespect, you don't. You craft lies to support your bigoted views.
<quoted text>
No, I simply support equality under the law for all, which includes the ability to seek services from places of public accommodation.
You, on the other hand, seek to create loopholes where business owners can deny service to people. You, basically, seek a return to segregation, albeit not via race.
You are dishonest. You continue to show you’re full of hate for those who don’t support your cause. You stand for government punishing those who do nothing to harm anyone or their liberties.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3277 Sep 1, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You are dishonest.
No, I am not. I am not the one supporting hatred, animus, and the ability to project one's religious views onto someone else, or to force potential clients to abide by the religious moral beliefs of the business owner in order to obtain service.
Your argument is similar to those who believed anti-discrimination laws abridged the rights of lunch counter owners running segregated establishments. In neither case are the rights of the owners infringed upon in any way.
Respect71 wrote:
You continue to show you’re full of hate for those who don’t support your cause.
No, I don't care if the business owner is supportive or approving of the relationship. Their religious beliefs do not constitute a valid basis for discrimination or denial of service.
This isn't merely my opinion, in Colorado it is the law.
Respect71 wrote:
You stand for government punishing those who do nothing to harm anyone or their liberties.
The government in no way punished the business in question. They were not jailed, fined, or forced to provide the cake for the wedding in question. They were required to provide service equally to all potential clients. Of course, they found their bigotry and judgement of others more important than their business' ability to post a profit, and elected to stop offering wedding cakes altogether.

To say that the state is punishing them is an outright lie.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3278 Sep 1, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. No, I am not.
2. I am not the one supporting hatred, animus, and the ability to project one's religious views onto someone else, or to force potential clients to abide by the religious moral beliefs of the business owner in order to obtain service.
3. Your argument is similar to those who believed anti-discrimination laws abridged the rights of lunch counter owners running segregated establishments. In neither case are the rights of the owners infringed upon in any way.
4. No, I don't care if the business owner is supportive or approving of the relationship. Their religious beliefs do not constitute a valid basis for discrimination or denial of service.
This isn't merely my opinion, in Colorado it is the law.
5. The government in no way punished the business in question. They were not jailed, fined, or forced to provide the cake for the wedding in question. They were required to provide service equally to all potential clients. Of course, they found their bigotry and judgement of others more important than their business' ability to post a profit, and elected to stop offering wedding cakes altogether.
6. To say that the state is punishing them is an outright lie.
1. You said you were straight then you said you were gay. One of those is a lie. That makes you a liar.
2. No one is forcing their views on anyone else except for the gay men that wanted a wedding cake.
3. False.
4. Same sex marriage is banned in Colorado as well, it the law. The baker's 1st amendment rights were violated. Especially now that the supreme court holds that a closely held business is a person with religious rights.
5. Of course they did.
6. It's not a lie, it's a fact. You don't like facts.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3279 Sep 1, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Oh, you mean like baking a cake?” I mean the owners and operators of wedding industry shops aren’t all people of faith.
Right, because the business is not inherently religious. Baking a cake isn't inherently religious. Neither is making a flower bouquet, or taking pictures, or renting a tuxedo.
Respect71 wrote:
“Churches are private clubs, not businesses open to the public.” Both are open o the public and both have religious rights.
Churches are only open to the public if they choose to be. A church can completely close its doors to all non-members if they want to. Businesses cannot.
Respect71 wrote:
“What's the relevant difference?” The 16 year old McDonald’s worker doesn’t sent 5-6 hours with a couple planning the look and design of the big mac he’s going to prepare for them, then spend a day cooking and frying and putting the big mac together and another couple few hours delivering and setting it up for the couple and wait until there’s an okay of how that big mac looks.
That difference has no relevance to this issue. It doesn't matter how long the process takes. If a gay couple asked for a wedding cake that was a simple cupcake that takes 15 minutes to make, would it suddenly not be okay to discriminate against them?
Respect71 wrote:
Not to mention the celebration of what the wedding Big Mac is created for… the institution of marriage.
Irrelevant. You're pretending like only YOUR religious views matter because YOU view marriage as having special religious meaning. A McDonald's working may view eating as a religious rite.
Respect71 wrote:
Chick-Fil-A is absolutely a religious organization that holds a higher standard than many businesses and for you to suggest otherwise further shows your ignorance.
It's your ignorance on display. You're absolutely wrong here.

Chick Fil-A is not a church, not a religious organization that can apply for 503c status, and not even a non-profit with strong religious background.

It's a business corporation.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3280 Sep 1, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Or why yours are long winded.
I agree my posts are longer than yours because mine are based on facts and knowledge while yours are typically based on lies and wishful thinking.
Respect71 wrote:
“Running a business is a regulated privilege, not a constitutional right. If one doesn't wish to comply with the law, one is not forced to remain in business.”

[QUOTE who="Respect71"]Runn ing a business is afforded to any American who so desires…
Only if they comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Otherwise they can be shut down. Once again, no one is above the law, your anarchist lies notwithstanding.
Respect71 wrote:
Government overreaches when they force an American to use their talents to support and participate in a institution they don’t believe in.
Yes, the bad federal government that overreached to end slavery and racial segregation, sex discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination and now, in some states, sexual orientation discrimination. One would think in a nation with an overwhelming majority of people professing faith in a religion that asserts "love others as yourself" as one of its two greatest commandments that the US would be relatively discrimination free. But apparently many Christians, including the baker, don't like themselves very much since they seek to harm others by discriminating against them.
Respect71 wrote:
“On the contrary, it's sad you justify law breaking for only certain people in certain businesses holding certain beliefs. You obviously have no f-ing clue what equal protection of the law really means. And even more sad, you're too stupid to even fake it.”

[QUOTE who="Respect71"]LOL if all you can do is call me stupid to justify your stance on punishing another American for doing absolutely nothing to the gay couple, then so be it. My stance is clear.
Yes, your stance is clearly stupid since it's based on lies and wishful thinking and not remotely based on actual law and legal precedent. And violating another's civil rights is not "doing absolutely nothing".

Why are you such a lying *sswipe? Have you no shame that you resort to a constant stream of lies to justify the unlawful acts of others?

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3281 Sep 1, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Turned down? LOL…Not one case has been heard by SCOUS and it one will have to in order to settle these many disputes.
When a case is appealed to SCOTUS and they decline to hear the appeal, it's called being "turned down", among pother phrases used to describe it. In fact, SCOTUS had an opportunity to hear a case essentially identical to that of the baker with the primary difference being it involved a wedding photographer rather than a baker. SCOTUS chose not to hear the appeal, letting a ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court against the wedding photographer stand. SCOTUS apparently doesn't think there's any problem in application of their precedents on the subject matter that requires their intervention.

But I see you still need to lie about facts that were widely published in the media. Perhaps you should see a medical professional to evaluate your seeming compulsive need to lie.

Respect71 wrote:
Just like ‘gay marriage”
SCOTUS in fact heard two same sex marriage cases in the term that ended in June 2013. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, SCOTUS ruled the Prop 8 proponents had no standing to appeal a federal district courts ruling in favor of same sex marriage and thus overturned California's constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriages.

In Windsor v. United States, SCOTUS ruled the federal government must recognize same sex marriages legally performed in states that allow them and limiting the federal government's definition of marriage to "one man and one woman" violated the fifth amendment due process.

So we see once again you lie about facts widely reported in the media.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3282 Sep 1, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
And you example of demining and ridiculing someone you disagree with…
That you consider having your lies and lack of knowledge publicly called out as "demeaning and ridiculing" is your problem, not mine. If you find the truth of your deficiencies offensive, then I suggest you learn facts and and stop lying.
Respect71 wrote:
If there was a law I’m sure you would have me punished.
Though the stupidity of you and many others often seems like it rises to the level of criminal, it's just one of the prices we all must pay for having a constitutional republic form of government. It is interesting to note that the Founders didn't really want the uneducated masses having much to say about running the government since they generally only allowed property owners to vote and didn't provide for direct election of US senators or the US President.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3283 Sep 1, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. You said you were straight then you said you were gay. One of those is a lie. That makes you a liar.
You should be careful about throwing stones given the glass house you live in, lying *sswipe.
Wondering wrote:
2. No one is forcing their views on anyone else except for the gay men that wanted a wedding cake.
Asking to purchase a wedding cake is not forcing one's views on another, lying *sswipe.
Wondering wrote:
3. False.
Actually it's true, lying *sswipe.
Wondering wrote:
4. Same sex marriage is banned in Colorado as well, it the law.
Good thing the gay couple was just trying to purchase a cake for their reception and not an actual marriage ceremony then, eh *sswipe?
Wondering wrote:
The baker's 1st amendment rights were violated.
No they weren't. The ruling was in line with existing SCOTUS precedent on the subject matter.
Wondering wrote:
Especially now that the supreme court holds that a closely held business is a person with religious rights.
With respect to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive mandate and nothing else. Perhaps you should actually read the SCOTUS ruling in the Hobby Lobby case before asserting such a lie of omission by leaving out that important qualification to their decision..
Wondering wrote:
5. Of course they did.
No, as Lides correctly stated, neither the baker nor his business was jailed, fined, or forced to provide the cake for the wedding in question.

Why do you lie, Wondering?
Wondering wrote:
6. It's not a lie, it's a fact. You don't like facts.
Actually, the baker was not punished. Unless of course you consider educating yourself and/or your employees about diversity and the law to be punishment. Given your general ignorance on so many topics, however, perhaps you do consider education to be a form of punishment.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3284 Sep 2, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am not. I am not the one supporting hatred, animus, and the ability to project one's religious views onto someone else, or to force potential clients to abide by the religious moral beliefs of the business owner in order to obtain service.
Your argument is similar to those who believed anti-discrimination laws abridged the rights of lunch counter owners running segregated establishments. In neither case are the rights of the owners infringed upon in any way.
<quoted text>
No, I don't care if the business owner is supportive or approving of the relationship. Their religious beliefs do not constitute a valid basis for discrimination or denial of service.
This isn't merely my opinion, in Colorado it is the law.
<quoted text>
The government in no way punished the business in question. They were not jailed, fined, or forced to provide the cake for the wedding in question. They were required to provide service equally to all potential clients. Of course, they found their bigotry and judgement of others more important than their business' ability to post a profit, and elected to stop offering wedding cakes altogether.
To say that the state is punishing them is an outright lie.
“No, I am not.” You obviously are.
“I am not the one supporting hatred, animus, and the ability to project one's religious views onto someone else, or to force potential clients to abide by the religious moral beliefs of the business owner in order to obtain service.” When you can explain how the non-sale of a wedding cake,“force potential clients to abide by the religious moral beliefs of the business owner” We can talk, otherwise it’s more of your dishonest argument.

“No, I don't care if the business owner is supportive or approving of the relationship. Their religious beliefs do not constitute a valid basis for discrimination or denial of service.” Based on the First Amendment of our Constitution the baker can’t be forced to support and participate in a institution that he doesn’t believe in.

“The government in no way punished the business in question. They were not jailed, fined, or forced to provide the cake for the wedding in question. They were required to provide service equally to all potential clients. Of course, they found their bigotry and judgement of others more important than their business' ability to post a profit, and elected to stop offering wedding cakes altogether.” More dishonesty… Everyone sees to role government played in this case and make no mistake government FORCED him to give up selling wedding cakes and your idea that he decided to discontinue serving wedding cakes on his own volition is the purest of lies.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3285 Sep 2, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, because the business is not inherently religious. Baking a cake isn't inherently religious. Neither is making a flower bouquet, or taking pictures, or renting a tuxedo.
<quoted text>
Churches are only open to the public if they choose to be. A church can completely close its doors to all non-members if they want to. Businesses cannot.
<quoted text>
That difference has no relevance to this issue. It doesn't matter how long the process takes. If a gay couple asked for a wedding cake that was a simple cupcake that takes 15 minutes to make, would it suddenly not be okay to discriminate against them?
<quoted text>
Irrelevant. You're pretending like only YOUR religious views matter because YOU view marriage as having special religious meaning. A McDonald's working may view eating as a religious rite.
<quoted text>
It's your ignorance on display. You're absolutely wrong here.
Chick Fil-A is not a church, not a religious organization that can apply for 503c status, and not even a non-profit with strong religious background.
It's a business corporation.
“Right, because the business is not inherently religious. Baking a cake isn't inherently religious. Neither is making a flower bouquet, or taking pictures, or renting a tuxedo.” Supporting and participating in marriage institutions is… Marginalizing business operators doesn’t change these simple facts.

“That difference has no relevance to this issue.” It absolutely has relevance and for you to state otherwise is more evidence of your ignorance and your poor sense of “secular values” has superiority over people of faith.

“It doesn't matter how long the process takes. If a gay couple asked for a wedding cake that was a simple cupcake that takes 15 minutes to make, would it suddenly not be okay to discriminate against them?” The baker stated he would sell them cupcakes.

“Irrelevant. You're pretending like only YOUR religious views matter because YOU view marriage as having special religious meaning.” More of your superior “secular values” stating marriage has NO religious meaning or value? How do you figure? What book do you read that states marriage isn’t valued? Should we ban marriage all together based on what you say?

“A McDonald's working may view eating as a religious rite.” LOL… Based on what? Arbitrary “secular values” or one single passage from the Bible?

“It's your ignorance on display. You're absolutely wrong here.

Chick Fil-A is not a church, not a religious organization that can apply for 503c status, and not even a non-profit with strong religious background.

It's a business corporation.” Ran and operated by people of faith, and closed on Sunday!

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3286 Sep 2, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree my posts are longer than yours because mine are based on facts and knowledge while yours are typically based on lies and wishful thinking.
<quoted text>
Only if they comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Otherwise they can be shut down. Once again, no one is above the law, your anarchist lies notwithstanding.
<quoted text>
Yes, the bad federal government that overreached to end slavery and racial segregation, sex discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination and now, in some states, sexual orientation discrimination. One would think in a nation with an overwhelming majority of people professing faith in a religion that asserts "love others as yourself" as one of its two greatest commandments that the US would be relatively discrimination free. But apparently many Christians, including the baker, don't like themselves very much since they seek to harm others by discriminating against them.
<quoted text>
Yes, your stance is clearly stupid since it's based on lies and wishful thinking and not remotely based on actual law and legal precedent. And violating another's civil rights is not "doing absolutely nothing".
Why are you such a lying *sswipe? Have you no shame that you resort to a constant stream of lies to justify the unlawful acts of others?
“I agree my posts are longer than yours because mine are based on facts and knowledge while yours are typically based on lies and wishful thinking.” The First Amendment is all the fact I need... You can continue to spew long winded “facts and knowledge” about laws but there are laws (as my friend DNF pointed out in Indiana) the punish gays and people for gays getting married. You support those laws right! Anyone who breaks the law is wrong! No you will spew “facts and knowledge” about how they are un-Constitutional and I will stand with you because I believe it to be true! I actively support “gay marriage” and I stand with the baker who chooses (because of what he believes marriage to mean) to support and participate by using his talents husband and wives in their celebrations.

“Only if they comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Otherwise they can be shut down. Once again, no one is above the law, your anarchist lies notwithstanding.” Just like in Indiana…

“Yes, the bad federal government that overreached to end slavery” Check you history… It wasn’t “federal government” that ended slavery…

“and racial segregation, sex discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination and now, in some states, sexual orientation discrimination.” Again, NOT the “federal government”… Your ““facts and knowledge” seem to be lacking in that it’s Americans (mainly Christians) who stood for freedom, and our Constitution who caused these movements.

“One would think in a nation with an overwhelming majority of people professing faith in a religion that asserts "love others as yourself" as one of its two greatest commandments that the US would be relatively discrimination free.” And it is… Are you saying it’s not?

“But apparently many Christians, including the baker, don't like themselves very much since they seek to harm others by discriminating against them.” Who are you to judge? Please explain how the NON-SALE of a wedding caked harmed the gay couple?

“Yes, your stance is clearly stupid since it's based on lies and wishful thinking” My stance is based on the First Amendment of our Constitution, while your arguments are laws that thus far has only been pressed forward on basis of opinion, emotion, not on fact or reason. That’s truth that you can’t live with so you have to rationalize it any way you can.

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
Male on Female Facesitting topix? 6 hr alimaster 11
Devil Clown Inc. Big Top Saloon (Dec '11) 10 hr Izzy-_- 3,435
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) Thu Respect71 28,194
Women Apr 26 Ellen 1
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) Apr 25 JP MORGAN 717
last post wins! (Feb '11) Apr 25 _FLATLINE-------- 26,290
Opiates Apr 24 Hetmcb21 4

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages