Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 3,748

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)

Full Story

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#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.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3287 Sep 2, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
“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.” So therefore what? How many cases has SCOTUS “turned down” during this term?

“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.” 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?

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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#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?

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#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).

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

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

“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.

“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!?!

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
Review: Weekly Home Buyers List, Inc. 4 hr kelly proctor 2
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 10 hr KarlVIIIII 12,820
Morgan Ingram was not murdered nor stalked. (Nov '12) 11 hr JMO 42
last post wins! (Feb '11) 19 hr NotaGoth 24,655
COP CRimes : Trooper Dope Dealer /Trooper ... (Jun '12) Mon Alice 3
Attire for Formal Weddings Mon kately 1
Teacher back in class after Bush-Hitler comparison (Mar '06) Oct 19 Swedenforever 64
Denver Dating
Find my Match

Denver Jobs

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]