Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 36258 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

#400 Dec 22, 2013
southern alien wrote:
<quoted text>
The 14th amendment you keep ignoring. Plus there is an added law in Colorodo about gay discrimination.
“The 14th amendment you keep ignoring.” I showed you how it applied to the baker as well.

“Plus there is an added law in Colorodo about gay discrimination.”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” For this case!
d pantz

United States

#401 Dec 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Then how would their actions be a violation of your right to be Christian in public?
because they use the courts to limit speech and expression. You are free to be a Christian in public, just not free to speak as or express yourself as a Christian. In fact, you better keep it a secret if you don't want to be persecuted. However is you're a secularist, go right ahead and say or do whatever you want. Like I said before if the baker been an atheist and refused to bake a cake for Christians, nothing would have happened to him.
d pantz

United States

#402 Dec 22, 2013
The truth is marriage equality is discrimination against single people.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#403 Dec 22, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
You refuse the First Amendment of our Constitution in favore of a law that doesn’t apply to a wedding cake just like a church would preform a “gay-marriage” ceremony.
His decorating a wedding cake is not a religious rite and he does not provide religious services, he provides baked goods. The individual's right to free exercise is more limited in the public square, than his place of worship or his own home, because the government has a greater interest in what is going on in the public square than anywhere else. The government has an interest in preventing discrimination, customers do have rights too. This interest outweighs the free exercise rights of the God hates **** and/or what **** do crowd. Your behavior isn't the only behavior being limited here, those who don't blame God for their behavior are sanctioned too.
Respect71 wrote:
Really? They why aren't they televised?
I imagine all or parts of most of the bigger ones do get telecast locally. But since they are mass events, involving hundreds of groups and thousands upon thousands of participants, they tend to be long and a lot more boring than you imagine. The bits that freak some folk out, actually a lot fewer and a lot farther between than you fantasize. Yes, you'll see it, but you'll also see thousands more not there to freak anyone out.
Respect71 wrote:
The question was, does being gay in “public square get that same level of scrutiny when it comes to evaluating whether your right to practice what you preach”? That’s the argument you throw up for a Christian yet from what you wrote it doesn’t apply towards gays.
Huh? What on Earth are you talking about?
Respect71 wrote:
How is not selling a wedding cake the same?
The prohibition of virgin sacrifice and the prohibition of sexual orientation discrimination, even on religious grounds, are both reasonable limitations on the right of free exercise.
Respect71 wrote:
You keep saying it but you do hear that I have already acknowledged that!
You acknowledge it and then turn around and assert it as if it were his absolute right here. It isn't..
Respect71 wrote:
Like “gay pride parades”.
Like “gay pride parades”?
I hope those responses made some sort of sense to you.
[QUOTE who+"Respect71"]“Con gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” By government forcing him to sell a wedding cake goes against his belief as a Christian. You and I don’t have to like it, but it’s a bad precedent to allow government that much power.[/QUOTE]It isn't an absolute right, it is a right he would also not enjoy if his religious views allowed for discrimination based on race or any other suspect classification. It is a special right for believers only and a horrible precedent.
Respect71 wrote:
Yes, with the exception of a man who believes a wedding cake is only for a man-woman marriage.
Yawn.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#404 Dec 22, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
“Do they deserve to be discriminated against?” Yes, with the exception of a man who believes a wedding cake is only for a man-woman marriage.
You may wanna re-think that one, you just told me that not cake selling was the only act of discrimination the gay folk don't have coming to them.
Respect71 wrote:
To answer this you will have to show that one shop owner not selling them a wedding cake is persecution.
Denial of services available to ALL your other customers to gay folk on the basis of THEIR sexual orientation, persecution. It's a'gin the law.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s first the government’s job to protect our rights and the 1st Amendment is one of them.
But not all of them.
Respect71 wrote:
Absolutely not! You believe in gay pride and have parades... You are protected under the 1st amendment no matter how un-family friendly it is.
That doesn't change the reality that you are insisting on a constitutional right to violate the constitutional and legal rights of unsuspecting non-believers which is ONLY available to those who blame God for their otherwise illegal acts. Whose rights are violated by gay pride parades?
Respect71 wrote:
That’s not a kind statement... Care to clarify that one?
You are proposing a right which requires the invocation of faith to legally commit an otherwise legal act and I was wondering if a couple of GD's qualify.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#405 Dec 22, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
An un-Constitutional law, in this case.
One more time, in order for the government to be able to limit an individual's free exercise right, it must serve a compelling state interest in order to do so. Preventing random acts of discrimination by not just believers, but all business owners in the public square, just such an interest. The law is constitutional, even against strict scrutiny.
Respect71 wrote:
You mean like a gay pride parade?
The 1st Amendment protects all Americans.
You don't have to be gay to be in a gay pride parade, you have to be a believer and invoke your faith in order to commit an otherwise illegal act. See the difference?
Respect71 wrote:
That you are willing to allow the government ruin a man’s business for.
Ruining his business by ensuring that he follows state law in the future? That was even sillier.
Respect71 wrote:
“If you give some folk the right to violate laws that you aren't giving EVERYBODY, those you are giving it to are getting a special right. You can't possibly be this obtuse.” What public decency laws do gay pride parades break that they obviously make SPECIAL exceptions for?
Evidently you can be that obtuse and even more so.
Respect71 wrote:
Like the gay pride parade?
Pride parades don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. So you were saying?
Respect71 wrote:
Except in this case which isn’t ALL business owners.
No owner of a place of public accommodation in Colorado can refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation, even non-theists and atheists. That's ALL businesses.
Respect71 wrote:
Rental property isn’t a wedding cake. See what I mean by ALL OVER THE BOARD?
Both are services provided in the public square and I even pointed to another area the of law that you think good Christians would be even more freaked out about, try and keep up.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#406 Dec 22, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
That’s all on you. That’s your choice based on your ignorance and your “hate” for your perceived hate. I would die for my friends and the fact you, in your ignorance, say otherwise only shows your insecurity in your own self worth. America is a great place for gays to live and flourish and one baker or wedding photographer doesn’t change that fact, nor does your perspective change that fact either.
America is probably one of the better places to be while gay, but it's far from paradise and folk like you advocating for a right to discriminate against us in the name of God, far from helpful. I got news for you, I am far from ignorant. You can sugar coat your disrespect for us as human beings all you want, but I'm not swallowing. You are here claiming a right to hate us. It really is that simple.
Respect71 wrote:
I’m telling you you need to check with the hate in your heart.
I hate no one, what you are witnessing is righteous anger, it's no wonder you're confused.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#407 Dec 22, 2013
d pantz wrote:
because they use the courts to limit speech and expression.
Was there a point to this sentence fragment?
d pantz wrote:
You are free to be a Christian in public, just not free to speak as or express yourself as a Christian.In fact, you better keep it a secret if you don't want to be persecuted. However is you're a secularist, go right ahead and say or do whatever you want. Like I said before if the baker been an atheist and refused to bake a cake for Christians, nothing would have happened to him.
That is complete and utter nonsense. You have the right to be Christian, or any other choice of religion in public and that right is protected under both federal and state law.It is illegal to refuse service to someone who chooses to be Christian in public. Freedom of expression shouldn't be mistaken for a freedom from criticism. PS, in the atheist baker refusing his services on the basis of religion example, the good Christian couple wouldn't just have the force of state law on their side, but federal law as well. What the baker did in this case is currently only illegal in 13 other states and the D of C, plus a few dozen municipalities where state laws haven't been expanded. We are working to improve that.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#408 Dec 22, 2013
d pantz wrote:
The truth is marriage equality is discrimination against single people.
Single people, even those living in couples, are not considered similarly situated to those individuals who have contracted marriage becoming a legally recognized couple, they are not naturally equal groups of individuals. Single people do not receive the rights, benefits and protections married folk do, but they also don't get the legal obligations and responsibilities that go with being a member of a married couple. Single people retain the right to be married, as married folk retain the right to be single. We all be equal in that regard.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#409 Dec 23, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
“His decorating a wedding cake is not a religious rite and he does not provide religious services, he provides baked goods. The individual's right to free exercise is more limited in the public square, than his place of worship or his own home, because the government has a greater interest in what is going on in the public square than anywhere else. The government has an interest in preventing discrimination, customers do have rights too. This interest outweighs the free exercise rights of the God hates **** and/or what **** do crowd. Your behavior isn't the only behavior being limited here, those who don't blame God for their behavior are sanctioned too.” So therefore what?

“I imagine all or parts of most of the bigger ones do get telecast locally. But since they are mass events, involving hundreds of groups and thousands upon thousands of participants, they tend to be long and a lot more boring than you imagine. The bits that freak some folk out, actually a lot fewer and a lot farther between than you fantasize. Yes, you'll see it, but you'll also see thousands more not there to freak anyone out.” The answer is, because of the indecency.

“Huh? What on Earth are you talking about?” This is why your responding to MORE than a specific point leads to confusion.
“The prohibition of virgin sacrifice” NOT THE SAME AS REFUSING TO SELL A CAKE. All over the board.

“You may wanna re-think that one, you just told me that not cake selling was the only act of discrimination the gay folk don't have coming to them.” NOT selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is protected under the 1st Amendment.
“Denial of services available to ALL your other customers to gay folk on the basis of THEIR sexual orientation, persecution. It's a'gin the law.” What is the consequence of this so called “persecution”? The services are for only man-woman couples who are married.
“But not all of them.” If you deny the one for another then the government isn’t doing a good job.

“That doesn't change the reality that you are insisting on a constitutional right to violate the constitutional and legal rights of unsuspecting non-believers which is ONLY available to those who blame God for their otherwise illegal acts. Whose rights are violated by gay pride parades?” Those who would like to take their families (mainly little kids) to the area of which the parade is going on.

“One more time, in order for the government to be able to limit an individual's free exercise right, it must serve a compelling state interest in order to do so. Preventing random acts of discrimination by not just believers, but all business owners in the public square, just such an interest. The law is constitutional, even against strict scrutiny.” Not in this case.
“You don't have to be gay to be in a gay pride parade, you have to be a believer and invoke your faith in order to commit an otherwise illegal act. See the difference?” Gay pride in in the public square… As a gay man would you take your little children to a gay pride parade?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#410 Dec 23, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
“Ruining his business by ensuring that he follows state law in the future? That was even sillier.” Your opinion.

“Evidently you can be that obtuse and even more so.” In other words, you resort to name calling, to avoid answering.

“Pride parades don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. So you were saying?” They discriminate based on families and children.
“No owner of a place of public accommodation in Colorado can refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation, even non-theists and atheists. That's ALL businesses.” What about a pharmacy? I can go all over the board too.

“Both are services provided in the public square and I even pointed to another area the of law that you think good Christians would be even more freaked out about, try and keep up.” I wedding cake is provided to man-woman couples who are getting married, and apartment are available for ALL… Not the same.

“America is probably one of the better places to be while gay, but it's far from paradise and folk like you advocating for a right to discriminate against us in the name of God, far from helpful. I got news for you, I am far from ignorant. You can sugar coat your disrespect for us as human beings all you want, but I'm not swallowing. You are here claiming a right to hate us. It really is that simple.” Again, it’s your choice. My gay friends know my heart and who I am and how much I love them and I have no disrespect for you as a person or as a gay person, but the assertion that gay couples have the “right” to wedding cake is objectively absured.

“I hate no one, what you are witnessing is righteous anger, it's no wonder you're confused.” Call it what you will, it’s still your heart.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#411 Dec 23, 2013
[QUOTE who="Respect71] So therefore what?[/QUOTE]Therefore the law is not an unconstitutional infringement of his free exercise right.
[QUOTE who="Respect71]The answer is, because of the indecency.[/QUOTE]Only in your fantasies, not in reality.
[QUOTE who="Respect71]This is why your responding to MORE than a specific point leads to confusion.[/QUOTE]it's not my fault when you can't string together a coherent thought.
[QUOTE who="Respect71]NOT THE SAME AS REFUSING TO SELL A CAKE. All over the board.[/QUOTE]Once again, both are restrictions on an individual's free exercise rights. It helps if you pay attention, you won't be confused.
[QUOTE who="Respect71] NOT selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is protected under the 1st Amendment.[/QUOTE]That ISN'T what you told me the first time around and it still isn't.
[QUOTE who="Respect71] What is the consequence of this so called “persecution”? The services are for only man-woman couples who are married.[/QUOTE]Currently the consequences are an agreement not to violate the law again and having to post notice that he won't.
[QUOTE who="Respect71]“Those who would like to take their families (mainly little kids) to the area of which the parade is going on.[/QUOTE[Which they are still free to do. You still didn't address the issue of you demanding a special right to violate the law.
[QUOTE who="Respect71]Not in this case.[/QUOTE]According to WHOM? I spelled out how the law survives even strict scrutiny, all you are doing is making an empty claim.
[QUOTE who="Respect71]Gay pride in in the public square… As a gay man would you take your little children to a gay pride parade?
[/QUOTE]Yes. You're so desperate to try to change the subject of you demanding special constitutional rights to violate constitutionally valid anti-discrimination protections for 'believers' that are unavailable to non-believers. You have no shame.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#412 Dec 24, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Therefore the law is not an unconstitutional infringement of his free exercise right.
<quoted text>Only in your fantasies, not in reality.
<quoted text>it's not my fault when you can't string together a coherent thought.
<quoted text>Once again, both are restrictions on an individual's free exercise rights. It helps if you pay attention, you won't be confused.
<quoted text>That ISN'T what you told me the first time around and it still isn't.
<quoted text>Currently the consequences are an agreement not to violate the law again and having to post notice that he won't.
<quoted text>According to WHOM? I spelled out how the law survives even strict scrutiny, all you are doing is making an empty claim.
<quoted text>Yes. You're so desperate to try to change the subject of you demanding special constitutional rights to violate constitutionally valid anti-discrimination protections for 'believers' that are unavailable to non-believers. You have no shame.
“Therefore the law is not an unconstitutional infringement of his free exercise right.” It is, especially if you want to have a right to be gay in the public square yourself. The 1st Amendment applies to ALL Americans!
“Only in your fantasies, not in reality.” Seriously? You’re telling us all you would take your 3 year old child to a gay pride parade with all the “free expression”? Doubtful.
“it's not my fault when you can't string together a coherent thought.” No, not at all… not even when I directly quote from your post… Short, sweet, and focused is always better.
“Once again, both are restrictions on an individual's free exercise rights.” Does that include gay pride parades?
“It helps if you pay attention, you won't be confused.” Same for you.
“That ISN'T what you told me the first time around and it still isn't.” My stance has ALWAYS been the baker is protected user the 1st amendment.
“Currently the consequences are an agreement not to violate the law again and having to post notice that he won't.” So now you agree the baker is the one facing “persecution” and not the gay couple? You said the gay couple was being “persecuted”, THAT SAID, I asked you What is the consequence of this so called “persecution” the GAY couple?
“Which they are still free to do. You still didn't address the issue of you demanding a special right to violate the law.” Not if they want to subject their children to experience non-age appropriate “free expression”.
“According to WHOM?” Our Founding Fathers with the ratification of the Bill of rights. The First Amendment.
“I spelled out how the law survives even strict scrutiny, all you are doing is making an empty claim.” My claim is solid, yours removes rights from Ameircans.
“Yes.” Seriously? Because there is a great deal of fee expression that is not age appropriate.
“You're so desperate to try to change the subject of you demanding special constitutional rights to violate constitutionally valid anti-discrimination protections for 'believers' that are unavailable to non-believers. You have no shame.” The point I am making is you, with your gay pride parade, have the right to express yourself as a gay person in the public square, regardless of how other Americans feel about it. You remover the baker’s right to the same, then you risk losing your right for gay prides. The 1st Amendment is for ALL Americans, and if you can’t handle that then you may need to consider a different Country to reside.

Merry Christmas to you and your family! God loves you despite your perception for “hate”. You are very special to Him because he made YOU. God bless!

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#414 Dec 24, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
The 1st Amendment applies to ALL Americans!
Yes, it does, but it is still not an absolute right. The government does have the constitutional authority to limit and even deny the right of free exercise. In order to do so, it must serve a compelling governmental interest to do so. His individual right to practice what he preaches doesn't outweigh the government's authority to prevent acts of discrimination in the public square, regardless of the motivation behind them. The baker does not have the right to refuse service under the 1st Amendment.
Respect71 wrote:
Seriously? You’re telling us all you would take your 3 year old child to a gay pride parade with all the “free expression”? Doubtful.
You can run into very adult behavior that you would have rather waited to explain to a child until they were older just about anywhere you go. I once had to explain an enthusiastic expression of heterosexuality going on in a car in a mall parking lot to a 7 year old. For the vast majority of participants and spectators at these parades, their free expression is that of everybody else in everyday life. By the way, free expression of self and free expression of religious beliefs, two entirely different concepts. Limits and prohibitions on self expression need only be reasonable to survive scrutiny, limits and prohibitions on the expression of religious beliefs are held to a higher standard in order to survive scrutiny.
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
“Once again, both are restrictions on an individual's free exercise rights.” Does that include gay pride parades?
While there are those present at gay pride parades who are exercising their religious beliefs (many religious groups do participate and there are those allowed to protest), the parades themselves are not expressions of religious belief. Self expression, religious expression, still not the same thing.
Respect71 wrote:
“That ISN'T what you told me the first time around and it still isn't.” My stance has ALWAYS been the baker is protected user the 1st amendment.
With no sense of humor.
Respect71 wrote:
So now you agree the baker is the one facing “persecution” and not the gay couple? You said the gay couple was being “persecuted”, THAT SAID, I asked you What is the consequence of this so called “persecution” the GAY couple?
Not even in air quotes. The consequence for his breaking the law is to be told to not do it again and to let future customers know that he isn't going to discriminate like that again. The couple's consequence for abiding by the law and assuming they would receive fair and equal service, even while homosexual, was to be told that the baker chose to believe that God disapproved of their marriage and as such they had no right to service. They were singled out by him for what they believed, he is being 'punished' under the same laws that apply to non-believing cake bakers who would refuse service. You may want to look up the meaning of the word persecution.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#415 Dec 24, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
“According to WHOM?” Our Founding Fathers with the ratification of the Bill of rights. The First Amendment.
And some of their grandfathers had killed witches in the name of God and government. Our founding fathers believed in religious freedom with only the most necessary limits, not absolute religious freedom. There were just some things folk weren't allowed to do in the name of God. While protecting gay folk from those individuals who would invoke it as a legal excuse from discrimination protections wasn't a limitation they had in mind for it back then, our Constitution didn't stop thinking in 1783.
Respect71 wrote:
My claim is solid, yours removes rights from Ameircans.
Unless you can prove that the government has no interest in preventing such acts of discrimination by a business owner, the law withstands the strict scrutiny required of a constitutionally acceptable limit on the individual's free exercise rights. Sorry.
Respect71 wrote:
The point I am making is you, with your gay pride parade, have the right to express yourself as a gay person in the public square, regardless of how other Americans feel about it. You remover the baker’s right to the same, then you risk losing your right for gay prides. The 1st Amendment is for ALL Americans, and if you can’t handle that then you may need to consider a different Country to reside.
Merry Christmas to you and your family! God loves you despite your perception for “hate”. You are very special to Him because he made YOU. God bless!
What you don't seem to get is that the individual's right to express their choice of religious beliefs is more protected than an individual's right to self-expression at a gay pride parade. They are not synonymous concepts. The limits on religious expression a lot more limited than those on self-expression. People can and do sometimes get busted for crossing lines of legally acceptable public behavior at these events. All Americans have a right to freely express their religious beliefs, but not included in that concept is a right of the individual to violate the civil rights of others in the name of God. Sorry.
Independent

United States

#416 Dec 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If they invoke their atheistic beliefs as the reason they are discriminating against someone on the basis of their choice of religion, wouldn't they enjoy the same rights as a Theist who invoke their theistic beliefs as the reason they are discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation? Or is your special right getting more and more special?
<quoted text>Most of us know we are different from the vast majority of those around us long before anybody starts labeling what that difference is. We also often find out long before people start labeling our difference for us just how unpopular our difference is with some folk. It's a heterosexual world out there, those of us who aren't going to be one are pretty much left to our own devices to learn how to live with our difference in an occasionally really ugly, violent, hateful, mean-spirited world. It's not easy being different, believe me. If you want to pray that God hates **** or just **** being ****, that is between you and Him, but y'all folk just won't stop exercising your right to tell us frequently repeatedly and often just how much God hates us. We don't just have you folk blaming God for hating on us, we've got non-theistic rationales for irrational hate to deal with to. There are plenty of non-theists and maybe even atheists who either hate **** or just us **** being ****, more than we need, but our reality is that there are a lot more of you religious folk. We get along fine being different, happy, healthy and sane, as long as we don't allow the ugliness we have to face for being different chew us up and spit us out. We get being different, but what we don't get us is you hating on us for being different. My difference is a gift, it is treated with respect and always has been, by me anyways. It's time all you who haven't been given this gift to respect it and us as different.
I don't know you, therefore I do not hate you. God does not hate you. My problem is with your sin. God and I both cannot abide by it. It is the sin that is hated, not the sinner. So stop trying to make it all about you and your poor life choices.

Why do you find it necessary to announce your deviant sexual desires to the rest of the world, then attack us for not agreeing with you and giving you the go ahead to sin?
Keep it to yourself and everyone would be happier for it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#417 Dec 26, 2013
Independent wrote:
I don't know you, therefore I do not hate you. God does not hate you. My problem is with your sin. God and I both cannot abide by it. It is the sin that is hated, not the sinner. So stop trying to make it all about you and your poor life choices.
Why do you find it necessary to announce your deviant sexual desires to the rest of the world, then attack us for not agreeing with you and giving you the go ahead to sin?
Keep it to yourself and everyone would be happier for it.
Your problem with what you call my sin, is your problem with God, not mine. You do not speak for God, merely your poor lifestyle choice which you blame Him for. The reality is that there is something about me that you choose to hate, where I do not hate you or your own dubious moral choices. Your holier than thou version of Christianity, not particularly Christlike. I haven't announced my sexual desires to the world, deviant or otherwise. I'm homosexual, it's not my fault the only thing you know about that are your fantasies about my sex life.
Independent

United States

#418 Dec 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text> The reality is that there is something about me that you choose to hate,


Please re-read what I said, I choose not to hate you. Does not mean I do not see what you do as a sin. I "Blame" no one for my beliefs, least of all God, they are what they are. I also don't claim to speak for God or anyone else.
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>fantasies about my sex life.
LOL, hardly fantasies, Don't let your ego get the best of ya. The thought of laying with another man has never been appealing to me. I spend my sexual fantasy time thinking about gorgeous women. But, hey, that's just me..........

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#419 Dec 26, 2013
Independent wrote:
Please re-read what I said, I choose not to hate you. Does not mean I do not see what you do as a sin. I "Blame" no one for my beliefs, least of all God, they are what they are. I also don't claim to speak for God or anyone else.
The reality remains that you have chosen to hate something about me and think God actually blesses it.
Independent wrote:
LOL, hardly fantasies, Don't let your ego get the best of ya. The thought of laying with another man has never been appealing to me. I spend my sexual fantasy time thinking about gorgeous women. But, hey, that's just me..........
The only knowledge you have of my sex life is a creation of your own mind, hence fantasy. Don't kid yourself. It's not my fault that you find your homoerotic fantasies unappealing and your heterosexual ones unfulfillable.
Independent

United States

#420 Dec 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The reality remains that you have chosen to hate something about me and think God actually blesses it.
You sound very angry at my beliefs, to the point of only attacking me on a personal, made up, level. Who is the hater here?

How do you know what my thoughts of God are? God didn't talk to me, natural desires, along with teaching have added in forming my beliefs.

Wah wah....get over yourself, not everybody has to love every aspect of you, or your life choices.

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 factcheck 23,295
District 2 cops 4 hr Lupe 7
Beware of Remedy roofing (May '11) 6 hr Hammerandnails 42
last post wins! (Feb '11) 11 hr _FLATLINE-------- 25,929
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 16 hr Study hard 665
106.7 kbpi is the worst morning show ever! (Feb '15) 16 hr Cofriends 580
News 'ER' star faces paternity suit (Jul '07) 16 hr Snowbird17 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages