Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 49251 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

#3288 Sep 2, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
My point stands firm.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3289 Sep 2, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Supporting and participating in marriage institutions is…
Providing a product to someone is neither support nor participation in whatever they choose to use that product for.
Respect71 wrote:
“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 has no relevance. You cannot based religious principle based on "time spent".

If the product (hamburger) takes 20 minutes to make, then your religious objections are rejected.
But if the product takes 5 hours to make (wedding cake), then your religious objections have to be respected.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.
Wedding cupcakes?
Respect71 wrote:
“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?
No. Try reading. I said the opposite. Marriage has religious meaning to YOU, and many other people. Cooking hamburgers might have religious meaning to ME.

You can't say that your, or a baker's, religious views on marriage give you legal protections, while my religious views on hamburgers can just be ignored.

Either both or neither. Pick one.
Respect71 wrote:
“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?
Based on my beliefs. You say marriage is a religious rite based on your beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
Ran and operated by people of faith, and closed on Sunday!
Still not a religious organization.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3290 Sep 2, 2014
Part 1 of 2
Respect71 wrote:
The First Amendment is all the fact I need...
Actually, you need knowledge of the first amendment has been interpreted and applied to these kinds of cases previously. Courts generally follow precedent unless there's a n exceptional reason not to and SCOTUS has already set precedent in this area.
Respect71 wrote:
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, I don;t support unconstitutional laws. But as I've pointed out to you previously, there is an established process for challenging the constitutionality of laws and I expect others to follow that process when they feel a law is unconstitutional.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
So you're inconsistent. You don't support discrimination against gays exercising their fundamental right of marriage but you do support discrimination against them in their ability to purchase goods and services from a public accommodation. All because you think you know what the first amendment means and how it's interpreted when in fact you know squat about it.
Respect71 wrote:
Just like in Indiana…
Since Indiana's law prohibiting same sex marriage has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge and is under appeal although the 7th Circuit is likely to uphold the original ruling of unconstitutionality., that particular law likely won't be enforceable in the future. Regardless, if someone is charged with violating it, they can challenge its constitutionality.
Respect71 wrote:
Check you history… It wasn’t “federal government” that ended slavery…
The beginning of the end of slavery started with President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which was enforced as Union troops took control of Confederate territory. It was permanently banned by the 13th amendment to the federal constitution (which if you recall your high school civics, amendments are first proposed by and passed by super majorities of Congress before ratification by the states. Do you think the President and Congress aren't part of the federal government?

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3291 Sep 2, 2014
Part 2 of 2
Respect71 wrote:
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.
Really? All those Christians in the south didn't end slavery or subsequent segregation. It took lawsuits and federal legislation to bring official racial segregation to an end. I'm not disputing that many if not most of the members of Congress were Christian, but the ability to pass laws is not based on religious affiliation nor did Christian churches have independent power to end any sort of discrimination as a matter of law.
Respect71 wrote:
And it is… Are you saying it’s not?
Discrimination has gradually been reduced, yes. But it's taken of hundreds of years to get to this point and there are people like you and the baker that still think it's OK to discriminate against people who are simply trying to buy goods and services from businesses that purport to sell them.
Respect71 wrote:
Who are you to judge? Please explain how the NON-SALE of a wedding caked harmed the gay couple?
I'm an American citizen and can freely express my opinion on whether someone is following the supposed precepts of their faith. And once again, a public accommodation that refuses to sell its goods and services to all members of the general public violates a civil right granted by all states to their citizens. Violating a civil right is by definition a legal harm and other harms may or may not result as well.
Respect71 wrote:
My stance is based on the First Amendment of our Constitution
No, your stance is based on a total lack of understanding on how the first amendment has been interpreted by SCOTUS and applied to situations like the case of the baker. It's settled constitutional law and precedent for handling it already exists. If you had knowledge of constitutional law, you'd know this already instead of thinking to merely reciting the first amendment counts for something.
Respect71 wrote:
while your arguments are laws that thus far has only been pressed forward on basis of opinion, emotion, not on fact or reason.
And yet it's been me, not you, that has cited case law and precedents,you pathetic, pathological liar.
Respect71 wrote:
That’s truth that you can’t live with so you have to rationalize it any way you can.
The one rationalizing their lack of education and stupidity is YOU, lying *sswipe.

Grow up and stop playing these grade school caliber games.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3292 Sep 2, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
So therefore what?
If SCOTUS declines to hear an appeal with a set of circumstances virtually identical to the case of the Colorado baker, why do you stupidly think they would suddenly hear the appeal of a virtually identical case?

Respect71 wrote:
How many cases has SCOTUS “turned down” during this term?
The current term doesn't start until October. And it's irrelevant how many cases were turned down last term since only cases similar to the Colorado case are relevant and the only similar case was turned down.
Respect71 wrote:
Why did this happen? Because SCOTUS heard the case… Had the “turned own” the case (of which they very well could have based on past court rulings) would you change your mind about Prop 8?
Thanks for being too spineless to admit you lied about SCOTUS not hearing any gay marriage cases. Had SCOTUS turned down the appeal of the Prop 8 case, it would indicate there either no issue with the ruling that required correcting or there wasn't a split in the federal circuits on this particular matter of law that required resolution or that they simply didn't feel it was a case worthy of their time. Regardless, either the District or Appellate ruling would have stood and the same sex marriage prohibition in California would have been declared unconditional (which is exactly what happened anyway).

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3293 Sep 2, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
My point stands firm.
Yes, firmly grounded in ignorance and lies.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3294 Sep 2, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You obviously are.
No, DisRespect, I'm not. Most people on this thread can see through your one dimensional lies, which have already failed in court.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
Simple, the owner is requiring the client to be in compliance with the owner's views in order to obtain service. Doing so infringes upon the free exercise of the client.
The baker has no right to require such a test, and providing a service for someone with differing religious beliefs in no way infringes upon any of the baker's rights.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
Sorry, kiddo, providing a service from a place of public accommodation is not being forced to support or participate in the institution. The baker is being asked to do what he already does, which is bake a cake. Where it will be consumed is none of his concern.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
The government of the State of Colorado has an anti-discrimination statute. Such statutes have routinely been upheld as constitutional. In colorado, businesses may not discriminate on a number of criteria, including sexual orientation. As the Administrative Law Judge wrote in their opinion, "The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation."

The government forced him to do nothing at all. They merely pointed out his illegal discrimination. He could have elected to remain in the wedding cake business, but he chose his bigotry and hypocritical judgment of others over his business.

The funny part is that you cannot articulate how his rights were violated, primarily because they were not, and you continue to advance arguments that have already failed both in court as well as upon appeal.

Your position is utterly without basis in fact, law, or reality.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3295 Sep 3, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Providing a product to someone is neither support nor participation in whatever they choose to use that product for.
<quoted text>
It has no relevance. You cannot based religious principle based on "time spent".
If the product (hamburger) takes 20 minutes to make, then your religious objections are rejected.
But if the product takes 5 hours to make (wedding cake), then your religious objections have to be respected.
<quoted text>
Wedding cupcakes?
<quoted text>
No. Try reading. I said the opposite. Marriage has religious meaning to YOU, and many other people. Cooking hamburgers might have religious meaning to ME.
You can't say that your, or a baker's, religious views on marriage give you legal protections, while my religious views on hamburgers can just be ignored.
Either both or neither. Pick one.
<quoted text>
Based on my beliefs. You say marriage is a religious rite based on your beliefs.
<quoted text>
Still not a religious organization.
“Providing a product to someone is neither support nor participation in whatever they choose to use that product for.” It is… Are you married? Did you plan anything and was any of it “no big deal”… The fact that you marginalize the wedding industry down to a “product” tells me you may not be married or your “secular values” cause you to not care.

“It has no relevance. You cannot based religious principle based on "time spent". It’s the participation in order to support the event!

“If the product (hamburger) takes 20 minutes to make, then your religious objections are rejected.
But if the product takes 5 hours to make (wedding cake), then your religious objections have to be respected.” so you’re showing more ignorance and being very dishonest by comparing a hamburger to a wedding cake.

“No. Try reading. I said the opposite. Marriage has religious meaning to YOU, and many other people. Cooking hamburgers might have religious meaning to ME.” But they don’t… so then why argue the point? Because you have NOTHING else you can argue, which brings more dishonest discussion.

“You can't say that your, or a baker's, religious views on marriage give you legal protections, while my religious views on hamburgers can just be ignored.”…

“Still not a religious organization.” It is and I know that scares you, and it makes you sad because you want Chick-Fil-A on Sundays.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3296 Sep 3, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
<quoted text>
Actually, you need knowledge of the first amendment has been interpreted and applied to these kinds of cases previously. Courts generally follow precedent unless there's a n exceptional reason not to and SCOTUS has already set precedent in this area.
<quoted text>
No, I don;t support unconstitutional laws. But as I've pointed out to you previously, there is an established process for challenging the constitutionality of laws and I expect others to follow that process when they feel a law is unconstitutional.
<quoted text>
So you're inconsistent. You don't support discrimination against gays exercising their fundamental right of marriage but you do support discrimination against them in their ability to purchase goods and services from a public accommodation. All because you think you know what the first amendment means and how it's interpreted when in fact you know squat about it.
<quoted text>
Since Indiana's law prohibiting same sex marriage has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge and is under appeal although the 7th Circuit is likely to uphold the original ruling of unconstitutionality., that particular law likely won't be enforceable in the future. Regardless, if someone is charged with violating it, they can challenge its constitutionality.
<quoted text>
The beginning of the end of slavery started with President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which was enforced as Union troops took control of Confederate territory. It was permanently banned by the 13th amendment to the federal constitution (which if you recall your high school civics, amendments are first proposed by and passed by super majorities of Congress before ratification by the states. Do you think the President and Congress aren't part of the federal government?
“Actually, you need knowledge of the first amendment has been interpreted and applied to these kinds of cases previously.” Seriously? Based on that then there should be no First Amendment cases heard by SCOTUS.

“Courts generally follow precedent unless there's a n exceptional reason not to and SCOTUS has already set precedent in this area.” They haven’t in these specific cases.

“No, I don;t support unconstitutional laws.” And I don’t either.

“So you're inconsistent.” No I am very and intently constant.“gay marriage” does exist and it is unlawful for government to prevent it from happening, and it is unlawful for government to force or punish people in the wedding industry for holding to what their beliefs are in regards to marriage. What I stand for is freedom for ALL Americans to be who they are WITHOUT fear of government prosecution. Where you stand your unspoken statement is “you will support “gay marriage” or be punished or forced out of the wedding industry” because you do not support it.”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3297 Sep 3, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
<quoted text>
Really? All those Christians in the south didn't end slavery or subsequent segregation. It took lawsuits and federal legislation to bring official racial segregation to an end. I'm not disputing that many if not most of the members of Congress were Christian, but the ability to pass laws is not based on religious affiliation nor did Christian churches have independent power to end any sort of discrimination as a matter of law.
<quoted text>
Discrimination has gradually been reduced, yes. But it's taken of hundreds of years to get to this point and there are people like you and the baker that still think it's OK to discriminate against people who are simply trying to buy goods and services from businesses that purport to sell them.
<quoted text>
I'm an American citizen and can freely express my opinion on whether someone is following the supposed precepts of their faith. And once again, a public accommodation that refuses to sell its goods and services to all members of the general public violates a civil right granted by all states to their citizens. Violating a civil right is by definition a legal harm and other harms may or may not result as well.
<quoted text>
No, your stance is based on a total lack of understanding on how the first amendment has been interpreted by SCOTUS and applied to situations like the case of the baker. It's settled constitutional law and precedent for handling it already exists. If you had knowledge of constitutional law, you'd know this already instead of thinking to merely reciting the first amendment counts for something.
<quoted text>
And yet it's been me, not you, that has cited case law and precedents,you pathetic, pathological liar.
<quoted text>
The one rationalizing their lack of education and stupidity is YOU, lying *sswipe.
Grow up and stop playing these grade school caliber games.
“I'm an American citizen and can freely express my opinion on whether someone is following the supposed precepts of their faith.” You can certainly have your opinion but your judgment (the courts and CCLC as well) towards him removed him from a large portion of his livelihood.

“And once again, a public accommodation that refuses to sell its goods and services to all members of the general public violates a civil right granted by all states to their citizens.” Again,“a civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury.” The baker did not keep the couple from going to another baker, nor did he call his baker friends and tell them not to sell a wedding cake to the couple, thereby there was NO interference and NO injury. He did nothing and you, the gay couple, and (emotional) government bureaucracy forced him out of a huge portion of his livelihood because he doesn’t believe the same as you.

“No, your stance is based on a total lack of understanding on how the first amendment has been interpreted by SCOTUS and applied to situations like the case of the baker. It's settled constitutional law and precedent for handling it already exists. If you had knowledge of constitutional law, you'd know this already instead of thinking to merely reciting the first amendment counts for something.” So were the laws in Indiana and Prop 8…

“And yet it's been me, not you, that has cited case law and precedents,you pathetic, pathological liar.” And that’s all you can say and what you are reduced to.
“The one rationalizing their lack of education and stupidity is YOU, lying *sswipe.

Grow up and stop playing these grade school caliber games.” I’m not the one who is resorting to name-calling (the lowest form of argument) in an attempt to justify punishing Americans for not believing the same as I do.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3298 Sep 3, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If SCOTUS declines to hear an appeal with a set of circumstances virtually identical to the case of the Colorado baker, why do you stupidly think they would suddenly hear the appeal of a virtually identical case?
<quoted text>
The current term doesn't start until October. And it's irrelevant how many cases were turned down last term since only cases similar to the Colorado case are relevant and the only similar case was turned down.
<quoted text>
Thanks for being too spineless to admit you lied about SCOTUS not hearing any gay marriage cases. Had SCOTUS turned down the appeal of the Prop 8 case, it would indicate there either no issue with the ruling that required correcting or there wasn't a split in the federal circuits on this particular matter of law that required resolution or that they simply didn't feel it was a case worthy of their time. Regardless, either the District or Appellate ruling would have stood and the same sex marriage prohibition in California would have been declared unconditional (which is exactly what happened anyway).
“If SCOTUS declines to hear an appeal with a set of circumstances virtually identical to the case of the Colorado baker, why do you stupidly think they would suddenly hear the appeal of a virtually identical case?” Why do you think they wouldn’t? More cases will come and sooner or later they will hear a case.

“The current term doesn't start until October. And it's irrelevant how many cases were turned down last term since only cases similar to the Colorado case are relevant and the only similar case was turned down.” This term just ended and just because you say it’s “irrelevant how many cases were turned down” doesn’t mean that the cases brought to SCOTUS had no legal standing…

“Thanks for being too spineless to admit you lied about SCOTUS not hearing any gay marriage cases. Had SCOTUS turned down the appeal of the Prop 8 case, it would indicate there either no issue with the ruling that required correcting or there wasn't a split in the federal circuits on this particular matter of law that required resolution or that they simply didn't feel it was a case worthy of their time. Regardless, either the District or Appellate ruling would have stood and the same sex marriage prohibition in California would have been declared unconditional (which is exactly what happened anyway).”…

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3299 Sep 3, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, DisRespect, I'm not. Most people on this thread can see through your one dimensional lies, which have already failed in court.
<quoted text>
Simple, the owner is requiring the client to be in compliance with the owner's views in order to obtain service. Doing so infringes upon the free exercise of the client.
The baker has no right to require such a test, and providing a service for someone with differing religious beliefs in no way infringes upon any of the baker's rights.
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, providing a service from a place of public accommodation is not being forced to support or participate in the institution. The baker is being asked to do what he already does, which is bake a cake. Where it will be consumed is none of his concern.
<quoted text>
The government of the State of Colorado has an anti-discrimination statute. Such statutes have routinely been upheld as constitutional. In colorado, businesses may not discriminate on a number of criteria, including sexual orientation. As the Administrative Law Judge wrote in their opinion, "The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation."
The government forced him to do nothing at all. They merely pointed out his illegal discrimination. He could have elected to remain in the wedding cake business, but he chose his bigotry and hypocritical judgment of others over his business.
The funny part is that you cannot articulate how his rights were violated, primarily because they were not, and you continue to advance arguments that have already failed both in court as well as upon appeal.
Your position is utterly without basis in fact, law, or reality.
“No, DisRespect, I'm not. Most people on this thread can see through your one dimensional lies, which have already failed in court.” Most on this thread hate me because I stand for freedom and they hate those who don’t believe as they do.

“Simple, the owner is requiring the client to be in compliance with the owner's views in order to obtain service.” No, the baker reserved his wedding cakes for husbands and wives… He “required” nothing from the gay couple, nor did he cause any injury.

The baker has no right to require such a test, and providing a service for someone with differing religious beliefs in no way infringes upon any of the baker's rights.

“Your position is utterly without basis in fact, law, or reality.” Your position is to justify punishment based upon “sexual discrimination” which by the facts in the case don’t exist. You the Court and the CCLC ruled on basis of opinion, disregarding law and the First Amendment all-together. That is fact and reality.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3300 Sep 3, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Most on this thread hate me because I stand for freedom and they hate those who don’t believe as they do.
You don't stand for freedom, you stand for freedom for those you agree with, and you stand for discrimination.
Respect71 wrote:
No, the baker reserved his wedding cakes for husbands and wives… He “required” nothing from the gay couple, nor did he cause any injury.
Of course, he does not have the right to do so under Colorado law.
He did cause injury be illegally denying service.
Respect71 wrote:
Your position is to justify punishment based upon “sexual discrimination” which by the facts in the case don’t exist. You the Court and the CCLC ruled on basis of opinion, disregarding law and the First Amendment all-together. That is fact and reality.
Sorry, DisRespect, there is no punishment in providing the service to any customer who seeks it, in fact, there is a profit to be made. Providing the cake is not an endorsement of the union, and it does not infringe upon any of the baker's rights.

The simple fact of the matter is that you are incapable of supporting your argument with facts, or illustrating precisely how the baker's rights would be harmed by providing the service because they wouldn't.

The baker is not prevented from entering a place of worship of his choosing, praying, holding his religious beliefs, disapproving of same sex marriage, or even telling the clients that he disapproves of the union. However to deny the service breaks the laws of the state of Colorado.

Religious freedom does not grant a free pass to break laws one doesn't agree with. It would be a scary country if that were the case.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3301 Sep 3, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Providing a product to someone is neither support nor participation in whatever they choose to use that product for.” It is… Are you married? Did you plan anything and was any of it “no big deal”… The fact that you marginalize the wedding industry down to a “product” tells me you may not be married or your “secular values” cause you to not care.
The wedding industry sells products. That is a simple fact. The products being important to the bride or groom does not mean they cease to be products.
Respect71 wrote:
“It has no relevance. You cannot based religious principle based on "time spent". It’s the participation in order to support the event!
Neither the hamburger maker and the cake maker is a participant in their products' consumption or use.
Respect71 wrote:
“If the product (hamburger) takes 20 minutes to make, then your religious objections are rejected.
But if the product takes 5 hours to make (wedding cake), then your religious objections have to be respected.” so you’re showing more ignorance and being very dishonest by comparing a hamburger to a wedding cake.
This is a non-reply. I just showed you that your entire premise is based on "time spent", and why that premise is absurd.

If you'd like, I can swap the hamburger for something else. How about a car? A car takes MORE time to create than a car. Can car salesmen discriminate now?
Respect71 wrote:
“No. Try reading. I said the opposite. Marriage has religious meaning to YOU, and many other people. Cooking hamburgers might have religious meaning to ME.” But they don’t… so then why argue the point?
I'm showing you how inconsistent and hypocritical you are. You support SOME religious beliefs, but not others.
Respect71 wrote:
“Still not a religious organization.” It is and I know that scares you, and it makes you sad because you want Chick-Fil-A on Sundays.
I already proved you wrong. Chick-Fil-A is a corporation, not a religious organization. It does not have 403c status.

And no, I don't want Chick-Fil-A on Sundays, or any days. Chick-Fil-A's food is garbage.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3302 Sep 3, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't stand for freedom, you stand for freedom for those you agree with, and you stand for discrimination.
<quoted text>
Of course, he does not have the right to do so under Colorado law.
He did cause injury be illegally denying service.
<quoted text>
Sorry, DisRespect, there is no punishment in providing the service to any customer who seeks it, in fact, there is a profit to be made. Providing the cake is not an endorsement of the union, and it does not infringe upon any of the baker's rights.
The simple fact of the matter is that you are incapable of supporting your argument with facts, or illustrating precisely how the baker's rights would be harmed by providing the service because they wouldn't.
The baker is not prevented from entering a place of worship of his choosing, praying, holding his religious beliefs, disapproving of same sex marriage, or even telling the clients that he disapproves of the union. However to deny the service breaks the laws of the state of Colorado.
Religious freedom does not grant a free pass to break laws one doesn't agree with. It would be a scary country if that were the case.
“You don't stand for freedom, you stand for freedom for those you agree with, and you stand for discrimination.” I’m not the one calling to punish and put those who don’t agree with me out of business… You are. So where lies the truth? The reader will decide.

“Of course, he does not have the right to do so under Colorado law.
He did cause injury be illegally denying service.” Reaching. He did nothing but reserve his wedding cakes for a husband and wife.

“Sorry, DisRespect, there is no punishment in providing the service to any customer who seeks it, in fact, there is a profit to be made. Providing the cake is not an endorsement of the union, and it does not infringe upon any of the baker's rights.” You state this base upon what you believe… To the baker planning, baking and setup of a wedding cake for an institution that he doesn’t believe in goes against his conscience. Seems you’re the one imposing your beliefs on him.

“Religious freedom does not grant a free pass to break laws one doesn't agree with. It would be a scary country if that were the case.” So damned are the gays in Indiana right!?!

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3303 Sep 3, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The wedding industry sells products. That is a simple fact. The products being important to the bride or groom does not mean they cease to be products.
<quoted text>
Neither the hamburger maker and the cake maker is a participant in their products' consumption or use.
<quoted text>
This is a non-reply. I just showed you that your entire premise is based on "time spent", and why that premise is absurd.
If you'd like, I can swap the hamburger for something else. How about a car? A car takes MORE time to create than a car. Can car salesmen discriminate now?
<quoted text>
I'm showing you how inconsistent and hypocritical you are. You support SOME religious beliefs, but not others.
<quoted text>
I already proved you wrong. Chick-Fil-A is a corporation, not a religious organization. It does not have 403c status.
And no, I don't want Chick-Fil-A on Sundays, or any days. Chick-Fil-A's food is garbage.
“The wedding industry sells products. That is a simple fact. The products being important to the bride or groom does not mean they cease to be products.” In fact is it brings more meaning to these “products”.

“This is a non-reply. I just showed you that your entire premise is based on "time spent", and why that premise is absurd.” I’m not the one claiming a hamburger holds the same meaning as a wedding cake and then tried to claim that a burger can fall into a religious belief. My premise is sound in that the wedding cake has meaning, the baker has to support and participate in the event he is making it for, and he chose to reserve the wedding cake for husbands and wives only because of his belief in marriage.

“I'm showing you how inconsistent and hypocritical you are. You support SOME religious beliefs, but not others.” You’re showing how ignorant you are, by making up beliefs that don’t exist… There are some religious beliefs that can’t be followed through with because it will impose upon other American’s right to believe what they will…

“I already proved you wrong.” You have proven nothing except for your hate for people of faith, you self righteous feeling of superiority to those of faith, based on your “secular values” you admit “that don’t come from anywhere;”

“Chick-Fil-A is a corporation, not a religious organization. It does not have 403c status.” It doesn’t have to have 303c status to be a religious organization and many small businesses, larger companies and corporations are run based on religious values, affectively making them religious organizations. Just because you hate religion won’t change that fact!

“And no, I don't want Chick-Fil-A on Sundays, or any days. Chick-Fil-A's food is garbage.” You’re missing out.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3304 Sep 3, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Seriously? Based on that then there should be no First Amendment cases heard by SCOTUS.
Yes, seriously. The US is over 200 years old so there has been a lot of time to accumulate first amendment case law and precedent. Sure, new contexts still come up that require resolution but it's not like we throw out all existing precedent and start from scratch every few years. As I've said previously, there have already been cases challenging the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws as they impact freedom of religion so there are already precedents in this area. That's likely one of the reasons SCOTUS turned down the appeal of the case of the New Mexico photographer that had facts almost identical to the Colorado baker. Your ignorance of this fact doesn't increase the likelihood SCOTUS will accept an appeal just to satisfy you.
Respect71 wrote:
They haven’t in these specific cases.
How would you know since you're ignorant of first amendment precedent and case law?
Respect71 wrote:
And I don’t either.
No, you just advocate breaking constitutional laws.
Respect71 wrote:
No I am very and intently constant.“gay marriage” does exist and it is unlawful for government to prevent it from happening, and it is unlawful for government to force or punish people in the wedding industry for holding to what their beliefs are in regards to marriage.
Correct on the former and wrong on the latter. Anti-discrmination laws have had their constitutionality previously challenged with regards to freedom of religion and were upheld because eliminating discrimination in public accommodations is deemed a compelling government interest and the impact to free exercise was deemed incidental.
Respect71 wrote:
What I stand for is freedom for ALL Americans to be who they are WITHOUT fear of government prosecution.
So if someone's religious beliefs include killing non-believers in their faith, then you support that person's ability to act in accordance with their beliefs and avoid government prosecution for murder. Got it.

Respect71 wrote:
Where you stand your unspoken statement is “you will support “gay marriage” or be punished or forced out of the wedding industry” because you do not support it.”
No, my position is if you wish to own and run a business, then you must abide by all the applicable laws and regulations of doing so. If you're unwilling or unable to comply with such laws or regulations, then your business can't be licensed and you need to find another means of supporting yourself.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3305 Sep 3, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“The wedding industry sells products. That is a simple fact. The products being important to the bride or groom does not mean they cease to be products.” In fact is it brings more meaning to these “products”.
ANY product can have additional meaning. You want to provide protections only for those products that have more meaning for YOU and people who have the same opinions as you.
Respect71 wrote:
I’m not the one claiming a hamburger holds the same meaning as a wedding cake and then tried to claim that a burger can fall into a religious belief. My premise is sound in that the wedding cake has meaning, the baker has to support and participate in the event he is making it for, and he chose to reserve the wedding cake for husbands and wives only because of his belief in marriage.
Any person can claim the exact same thing for the hamburger.
Respect71 wrote:
“I'm showing you how inconsistent and hypocritical you are. You support SOME religious beliefs, but not others.” You’re showing how ignorant you are, by making up beliefs that don’t exist
They exist the instant I make them up. That's what beliefs are. If my belief is that hamburgers are the most sacred food in the world, then that's my belief.

YOU don't get to say my beliefs are fake. If you do, I'll say YOUR beliefs are fake.
Respect71 wrote:
“Chick-Fil-A is a corporation, not a religious organization. It does not have 403c status.” It doesn’t have to have 303c status to be a religious organization
If Chick-Fil-A doesn't have a 501c (I incorrectly said 403c earlier) status, then there's no way it's a religious organization.

If Chick-Fil-A was a religious organization, it would have to be a non-profit organization. It's not.
Respect71 wrote:
and many small businesses, larger companies and corporations are run based on religious values, affectively making them religious organizations.
That's not what the term means.
Respect71 wrote:
“And no, I don't want Chick-Fil-A on Sundays, or any days. Chick-Fil-A's food is garbage.” You’re missing out.
No, I'm not. I've eaten there many times. My son used to like it because they have a Play Place. Chick-Fil-A is literally the last place I would go for chicken, including cooking it myself. Sounds like you're the one missing out on good food.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3306 Sep 3, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I’m not the one calling to punish and put those who don’t agree with me out of business… You are. So where lies the truth? The reader will decide.
I haven't called to punish anyone. The baker has to follow the law just like everyone else. He has no right to use his business to discriminate on the basis of his religious views.
Respect71 wrote:
Reaching.
Not even a little. The Colorado anti-discrimination law is quite clear on this point, and the baker broke the law. He isn't in trouble because he doesn't support same sex marriage, he is in trouble because he broke the law.
Respect71 wrote:
He did nothing but reserve his wedding cakes for a husband and wife.
Which is a right that he simply does not have.
Respect71 wrote:
You state this base upon what you believe…
Correct, I believe in religious freedom, where business owners may not use their businesses to project their beliefs onto their clients.
Respect71 wrote:
To the baker planning, baking and setup of a wedding cake for an institution that he doesn’t believe in goes against his conscience.
Then he can incorporate as a not-for-profit, seek 501(c)(3) status as a religious ministry, or form a private club where he has discretion over membership. So long as he elects to be a for profit business operating a place of public accommodation, he will still have to abide by laws forbidding discrimination.
Respect71 wrote:
Seems you’re the one imposing your beliefs on him.
Not at all. I merely argue that he should not be able to project his into others. Oddly enough, the Administrative Law Judge, and Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the later unanimously, agree with me.
It's time to find a new argument, DisRespect, the ones you are relying upon have already been shot down in court.
Respect71 wrote:
So damned are the gays in Indiana right!?!
Grow up.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3307 Sep 3, 2014
The_Box wrote:
If Chick-Fil-A doesn't have a 501c (I incorrectly said 403c earlier) status, then there's no way it's a religious organization.
If Chick-Fil-A was a religious organization, it would have to be a non-profit organization. It's not.
Chick-Fil-A never denied gays service or employment. What's your point?
Dan Cathy, the CEO, said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman.
You don't like that. It's his opinion. Screw you and your dislikes.

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 tbird19482 28,356
Nicole DuBois Savage 11 hr Jamie Dundee 10
casual sex in denver (Apr '15) Mon bigpoppi 23
Male on Female Facesitting topix? (Nov '16) May 21 JGJ92 12
Roosters May 19 zooalogy 1
Tar in Denver May 18 Haaalllpppp 4
Tar help May 18 Haaalllpppp 1

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages