Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 61727 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.

Libertarian

Denver, CO

#422 Dec 26, 2013
Jiz on a turd
Merry Christmas
Independent

United States

#423 Dec 26, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not angry at your beliefs, you have to live with them, I don't. You and others are free to believe that God hates **** doing the things **** do, that's between you and God. Simply because you want to feel better about your choices than you should doesn't mean we have to play along. Who is the hater here? You are, you said so yourself.
<quoted text>On the subject at hand, you told me. That's how you began, you giving me your thoughts on God's thoughts about my sin. <quoted text>Informing isn't the word to use to describe what has gone into your thoughts on this subject. It is what it is.
<quoted text>People hating me is nothing new to me, I see it as their problem, not mine. I was here discussing the non-existent right of the Colorado baker to practice what he preaches against unsuspecting customers in violation of a constitutionally valid law.
You are either incredibly dense, or are just throwing out bs to have something to argue against.

You have been told time and again, it is the sin that is hated, not the sinner. Sounds like you have self hatred, learn to forgive yourself.
d pantz

United States

#424 Dec 27, 2013
Libertarian wrote:
Jiz on a turd
Merry Christmas
exactly! Lol! Do what ever you want...just don't hurt anybody (children especially), and don't impose on other people. The baker is open to the public so there should be equal treatment of every customer. Which there was right? They wouldn't make a gay cake for a straight couple either. Or an icing design of a jizzed on turd, whether it be for a gay couple or not. Fair enough..... and somebody else can open a shop across the street that features cakes with jizzed on turds on em! I love America!
d pantz

United States

#425 Dec 27, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>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...
that was my point. According to unconstitutional law and your twisted opinion, single people are not "recognized" and not "equal" for making a free choice to be single. What the hell is your point, genius??

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#426 Dec 27, 2013
Independent wrote:
You are either incredibly dense, or are just throwing out bs to have something to argue against.
You have been told time and again, it is the sin that is hated, not the sinner. Sounds like you have self hatred, learn to forgive yourself.
The only dense one in our discussion is the one who just can't seem to get that they can't describe how they believe without reminding me that that there is something that they hate about me. Love the sinner, hate the sin is just the polite version of God hates **** doing what **** do. You want to feel better about believing that and I don't blame you, if I had hate in my heart for somebody, I'd want to be able to throttle my conscience to be able to sleep at night too. I avoid it by not hating you or your sins, those are between you and God, not me, even when committed against me. You're here to do God's work, not His job.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#427 Dec 27, 2013
d pantz wrote:
that was my point. According to unconstitutional law and your twisted opinion, single people are not "recognized" and not "equal" for making a free choice to be single. What the hell is your point, genius??
Single individuals are not similarly situated to those who have given up the rights, benefits and protections associated with that legal status for the status of married. It is rational for the government to treat individuals differently based on their marital status in given situations, given the legal obligations and responsibilities that go with each marital status. All marital statuses, except widowed, are voluntary on the part of the individual. If you want the rights, benefits and protections that go with the status of married, you have the right to be married, just like you have the right to be single and take advantage of the rights, benefits and protections that go with that.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#428 Dec 27, 2013
d pantz wrote:
The baker is open to the public so there should be equal treatment of every customer. Which there was right? They wouldn't make a gay cake for a straight couple either.
Somebody has some serious maturity issues, don't they?

The service the baker provides is wedding cakes, not straight wedding cakes. Customers, regardless of their sexual orientation, have a right to that service. He doesn't enjoy the right to deny his wedding cake service because he and God disapprove of the sexual orientation of the couple. God can forgive his act, but can't excuse it before the civil law.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#429 Dec 27, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
“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.” He does... It’s a wedding cake, not a gay union cake, and because of this he is well within his right to refuse baking a cake for that purpose.

“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.” My contention is you have the right to free expression, whether I agree with it or not, despite indecency laws, among other things, and so does the baker.

“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.” The 1st Amendment protects both.

“With no sense of humor.”...

“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.” So no rights were removed for the gays but the baker deserves to be punished because of forced political correctness.

“And some of their grandfathers had killed witches in the name of God and government.” What are you referring to here? How is killing a witch similar to not serving a wedding cake to gays?

“Our founding fathers believed in religious freedom with only the most necessary limits, not absolute religious freedom.” Correct and not serving a wedding cake to a gay couplewould fall under that 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.” In 2013 not serving a wedding cake to gay couples is a 1st amendment right.

“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.” No sorries necessary, but it will continue to higher courts and the baker will be found within his constitutional rights.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#430 Dec 27, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
“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.” They gay parade can be made illegal... Stands to reason with the amount of indecency. But that’s the government’s best interest, right?

The 1st Amendment applies to ALL Americans and I stand for your right to a gay parade and the bakers right to not serve a wedding cake to a gay couple. It’s not in the government’s interest to force a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple when he believes it’s for a married couple.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#431 Dec 27, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
He does... It’s a wedding cake, not a gay union cake, and because of this he is well within his right to refuse baking a cake for that purpose.
They weren't asking for some sort of "gay union" cake, they asked for a wedding cake, the service on offer. He does not have the right to refuse that service on the basis of the sexual orientation of his customers. The interest of the state to prevent discrimination against folk exercising their equal access in the marketplace outweighs his right to practice what he preaches. You have offered no rational argument to the contrary, no evidence or argument that what I have said is wrong. You've just plopped your butt down on the argument that the 1st Amendment just HAS to protect his God given right to be a right b*stard to lesbian and gay customers if they make the mistake of entering his business while homosexual and wanting "gay" cakes that God just don't approve of and stayed right there. Impervious to any and all fact, logic and reason.
Respect71 wrote:
My contention is you have the right to free expression, whether I agree with it or not, despite indecency laws, among other things, and so does the baker.
Whoa Nellie, while the individual's right to self-expression has radically changed the limits on what the government considers to be indecent criminal behavior, self-expression is a far more limited right than that of the right of the believer. Limitations on our right to self-expression by the government need only be rational/reasonable. There may be times and places where authorities may look the other way towards less serious infractions, that don't necessarily translate into a right to break the law. Someone is pressing charges here, therein lies the difference. The baker was given the chance to promise not to break the law again and the whole thing would go away, he chose to be prosecuted. God might forgive his act, but the 1st Amendment does not.
Respect71 wrote:
The 1st Amendment protects both.
They're both in there, along with free speech, a free press, free association and the right to petition and redress. They aren't the same rights and are held to different standards by the Courts. The only thing they have in common is being in the 1st Amendment.
Respect71 wrote:
So no rights were removed for the gays but the baker deserves to be punished because of forced political correctness.
He violated their right to his services as defined by the laws of his state. His rights have not been violated. You can call it forced political correctness if that's what turns you on, but the reality is that the government has the authority to tell business owners that there are just some lines you don't cross when it comes to the customers who come into your establishment.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#432 Dec 27, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
What are you referring to here? How is killing a witch similar to not serving a wedding cake to gays?
Ever hear of the Salem witch trials? Amazing what God and government can do when they put their minds to it. I referenced it because I was explaining the mindsets of our founding fathers towards limitations on religious practices. They were just a few generations removed from that sort of behavior and their relatives back in the old countries were routinely slaughtering one another along religious lines. They allowed religious freedom, but not absolute freedom.
Respect71 wrote:
Correct and not serving a wedding cake to a gay couplewould fall under that religious freedom.
Sorry, that falls within the government's interest in preventing discrimination in the marketplace. You've offered no reason why it wouldn't, nor In
Respect71 wrote:
2013 not serving a wedding cake to gay couples is a 1st amendment right.
If it were, he would have been found not guilty. He wasn't. There is still no word as whether he is appealing the verdict against him..
Respect71 wrote:
No sorries necessary, but it will continue to higher courts and the baker will be found within his constitutional rights.
The New Mexico photographer has already beat him to the Supreme Court. His fate largely rests on hers. She's lost three times in court now, including 5-0 at the state Supreme Court, her lawyers are from the same organization that his are.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#433 Dec 27, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
They gay parade can be made illegal... Stands to reason with the amount of indecency. But that’s the government’s best interest, right?
The amount of indecency is a figment of your imagination and if you imagine that the parade itself is indecent, you are a lost cause.
Respect71 wrote:
The 1st Amendment applies to ALL Americans and I stand for your right to a gay parade and the bakers right to not serve a wedding cake to a gay couple. It’s not in the government’s interest to force a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple when he believes it’s for a married couple.
Sorry, but the baker does not have a 1st Amendment right to refuse service, that is why he was found guilty.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#436 Dec 29, 2013
wekkiefran wrote:
youtube.com/watch?v=FoiU7lKJqS 8 …… The Baker can refuse baking a Cake or any service just because the baker doesnt want your Business
I really don't mind breaking this to you, but a business owner's right to refuse service, not an absolute one. The government has the constitutional authority to limit that right for the common good if there is a rational basis for doing so, you are operating a place of public accommodation and that public has rights too. One of the rights the public enjoys is a right to equal access to places of public accommodation and ALL the goods and services therein. This, like the right of a business owner to refuse service, is not absolute. It too can be limited by the government if there is a rational basis for doing so. The government determines who gets to exercise that right of equal access to any given business and the goods and services therein, not business owners. In this case, the government has determined that in a bakery, the public can exercise their right to access regardless of their sexual orientation. The business owner has no legal authority to deny that right to the public, or any of his goods and services, on that basis. This applies whether the business owner is claiming an allegedly moral authority for doing so or not. God might forgive you, but he doesn't excuse you breaking civil rights laws. This is what Jesus meant by render unto Caesar.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#437 Dec 30, 2013
Independent wrote:
<quoted text>
. 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.
First you have to prove such a thing as 'sin' exists before you can judge others for it.

Sexual orientation is not a 'choice', poor or otherwise.
Independent

United States

#438 Dec 30, 2013
southern alien wrote:
<quoted text>
First you have to prove such a thing as 'sin' exists before you can judge others for it.
Sexual orientation is not a 'choice', poor or otherwise.
I have to prove nothing to you as a non-believer.
My beliefs and upbringing say it is a sin.
I will leave the judging to God and the courts, your sin will have no affects on my life nor my salvation.

Try proving it is not a choice. Seems to me you are free to chose to be queer or straight. Ergo it is very much a 'choice'.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#439 Dec 30, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>.
“They weren't asking for some sort of "gay union" cake, they asked for a wedding cake, the service on offer. He does not have the right to refuse that service on the basis of the sexual orientation of his customers. The interest of the state to prevent discrimination against folk exercising their equal access in the marketplace outweighs his right to practice what he preaches. You have offered no rational argument to the contrary, no evidence or argument that what I have said is wrong. You've just plopped your butt down on the argument that the 1st Amendment just HAS to protect his God given right to be a right b*stard to lesbian and gay customers if they make the mistake of entering his business while homosexual and wanting "gay" cakes that God just don't approve of and stayed right there. Impervious to any and all fact, logic and reason.” The logic and reason is the 1st Amendment allows the baker to bake wedding cakes for man-woman married couples because of his belief of what marriage is, just like many churches who only marry man-woman couples. Your comment,“1st Amendment just HAS to protect his God given right to be a right b*stard to lesbian and gay customers” leads me to believe you have a distain for this man because of what he believes.

“Whoa Nellie, while the individual's right to self-expression has radically changed the limits on what the government considers to be indecent criminal behavior, self-expression is a far more limited right than that of the right of the believer. Limitations on our right to self-expression by the government need only be rational/reasonable. There may be times and places where authorities may look the other way towards less serious infractions, that don't necessarily translate into a right to break the law. Someone is pressing charges here, therein lies the difference. The baker was given the chance to promise not to break the law again and the whole thing would go away, he chose to be prosecuted. God might forgive his act, but the 1st Amendment does not.” Yes it does.

“They're both in there, along with free speech, a free press, free association and the right to petition and redress. They aren't the same rights and are held to different standards by the Courts. The only thing they have in common is being in the 1st Amendment.”…

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#440 Dec 30, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>y.
“He violated their right to his services as defined by the laws of his state. His rights have not been violated. You can call it forced political correctness if that's what turns you on, but the reality is that the government has the authority to tell business owners that there are just some lines you don't cross when it comes to the customers who come into your establishment.” The 1st Amendment removes to force of government in this case… Unless the baker was running around not allowing gays into ANY bakery then he is well within his rights.
“Ever hear of the Salem witch trials?” Yes, and it’s so sad that 16 people perished, however, not selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is not a fair comparison.

“Amazing what God and government can do when they put their minds to it. I referenced it because I was explaining the mindsets of our founding fathers towards limitations on religious practices. They were just a few generations removed from that sort of behavior and their relatives back in the old countries were routinely slaughtering one another along religious lines. They allowed religious freedom, but not absolute freedom.” Please show me where I claim that the 1st Amendment gives “absolute freedom.”.

“Sorry, that falls within the government's interest in preventing discrimination in the marketplace. You've offered no reason why it wouldn't, nor In” I have. Like some churches only perform marriage ceremonies for man-woman couples (as it is their right), this baker believes in only serving a wedding cake to man-woman couples. It is not in the government’s interest to impose your belief upon others.

“If it were, he would have been found not guilty. He wasn't. There is still no word as whether he is appealing the verdict against him.”…
“The New Mexico photographer has already beat him to the Supreme Court. His fate largely rests on hers. She's lost three times in court now, including 5-0 at the state Supreme Court, her lawyers are from the same organization that his are.” We shall see then.

“The amount of indecency is a figment of your imagination and if you imagine that the parade itself is indecent, you are a lost cause.” http://www.bing.com/images/search...
https://www.google.com/search...
“Sorry, but the baker does not have a 1st Amendment right to refuse service, that is why he was found guilty.” Then next it’s in the government’s interest to shut down gay pride parades. The 1st Amendment applies to ALL Americans.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#441 Dec 30, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
The logic and reason is the 1st Amendment allows the baker to bake wedding cakes for man-woman married couples because of his belief of what marriage is, just like many churches who only marry man-woman couples. Your comment,
My comment, your confusion. The baker doesn't share the same right as a place of worship to refuse service, he runs a place of public accommodation, they do not, he is not offering his religious services based on Church doctrine, like they are. Your first attempt to make an actual argument in favor of the baker and you blow it by not paying attention.
Respect71 wrote:
leads me to believe you have a distain for this man because of what he believes.
Wrong again, the only disdain I have is for obtuse insistence that the baker has an absolute right to violate the civil rights of anyone he claims that God doesn't approve.
Respect71 wrote:
Yes it does.
There you go again. You keep claiming this right, but other than the wording of the 1st Amendment itself, you offer no basis for the claim. Meanwhile, I have proved that the individual's right to expression of their beliefs is a limited right and not an absolute one. I have proved that the government has the authority to limit the right of free expression of individual if it serves a compelling interest in doing so. I have proved that preventing discrimination is such a compelling interest. I have proved that there is no such 1st Amendment right for a business to discriminate on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs. You have proved yourself rather obtuse.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#442 Dec 30, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>My comment, your confusion. The baker doesn't share the same right as a place of worship to refuse service, he runs a place of public accommodation, they do not, he is not offering his religious services based on Church doctrine, like they are. Your first attempt to make an actual argument in favor of the baker and you blow it by not paying attention. <quoted text>Wrong again, the only disdain I have is for obtuse insistence that the baker has an absolute right to violate the civil rights of anyone he claims that God doesn't approve.
<quoted text>There you go again. You keep claiming this right, but other than the wording of the 1st Amendment itself, you offer no basis for the claim. Meanwhile, I have proved that the individual's right to expression of their beliefs is a limited right and not an absolute one. I have proved that the government has the authority to limit the right of free expression of individual if it serves a compelling interest in doing so. I have proved that preventing discrimination is such a compelling interest. I have proved that there is no such 1st Amendment right for a business to discriminate on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs. You have proved yourself rather obtuse.
“My comment, your confusion. The baker doesn't share the same right as a place of worship to refuse service, he runs a place of public accommodation, they do not, he is not offering his religious services based on Church doctrine, like they are. Your first attempt to make an actual argument in favor of the baker and you blow it by not paying attention.”“, he runs a place of public accommodation” With the exception of the wedding cake. I am not arguing for the baker, I am arguing for the 1st Amendment. If the government can impose this political correctness on this baker, then what’s to stop them from imposing correctness on gay pride parades? If you re-read your posts you will notice that your are greatly for punishing this man when no ACTUAL rights where removed from this gay couple.

“Wrong again, the only disdain I have is for obtuse insistence that the baker has an absolute right to violate the civil rights of anyone he claims that God doesn't approve.” Gays have “absolute”“civil right” to purchase a wedding cake? Like I said above…

“There you go again. You keep claiming this right, but other than the wording of the 1st Amendment itself, you offer no basis for the claim. Meanwhile, I have proved that the individual's right to expression of their beliefs is a limited right and not an absolute one. I have proved that the government has the authority to limit the right of free expression of individual if it serves a compelling interest in doing so. I have proved that preventing discrimination is such a compelling interest. I have proved that there is no such 1st Amendment right for a business to discriminate on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs. You have proved yourself rather obtuse.” Insulting me doesn’t change the 1st Amendment of our constitution, and while the right isn’t “absolute” the baker, because his belief in marriage, should be allowed to only sell to man-woman couples. I understand you don’t like that, and truth be told I wouldn’t buy a thing from him, but government making him do it for the sake of political correctness gives too much power to government and is bad for all Americans.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#443 Dec 30, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
The 1st Amendment removes to force of government in this case… Unless the baker was running around not allowing gays into ANY bakery then he is well within his rights.
Wrong answer, customers share in an equal right to all goods and services that are on offer in his place of public accommodation, reserving any one or more of them based on a suspect classification, discrimination in violation of the law. He only refused a wedding cake is no more an excuse for his violating the law than God is.
Respect71 wrote:
Yes, and it’s so sad that 16 people perished, however, not selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is not a fair comparison.
I brought up the Salem witch trials only to explain the mindset of our founding fathers. They wanted religions and their religious to have a great deal of right to their beliefs and the freedom to exercise them, but being just a few generations removed from folk having God and their then government do something like that, it was never meant as an absolute right or freedom. There can be limits upon what God can excuse you from doing and limits on what government and religion can do in collaboration. They are necessary, religion and more often, the religious, can get seriously carried away. The government can get carried away too, but we the people are supposed to be the damper on that. The limit on not just the religious business owners right to refuse service, but ALL business owners right to refuse service on the basis of specific suspect classifications, has been necessitated by a history of bad conduct by business owners. Preventing random and usually ugly acts of bigotry in the public square, a compelling interest of the government, ESPECIALLY if they are protecting folk the owner has chosen to hate.
Respect71 wrote:
Please show me where I claim that the 1st Amendment gives “absolute freedom.”.
You've offered no other explanation as to why his action was one protected by the 1st Amendment, other than it just having to be his right to do so. I know you have some idea of there being some sort of limit on the right to practice one preaches, but you really haven't explained how or why this act exists on this side of that limit other than it being his right to do so, you've made his right an absolute one in regards to the question whether this act is covered.

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
News Chipotle HQ leaving Denver, plans move to Newpo... Thu Double 07 1
Want your D sucked Thu Bibjmaster 1
Review: I Love Kickboxing- Lakewood (Dec '15) May 22 Anonymous 94
Sex right now in Northglenn May 20 Observation 3
Denver co sex right now! (May '15) May 20 blankenship 14
Denver EMT May 19 Itsme 3
Why Are The Chi Lites Daughter's Hidding Trust ... May 19 who 2

Denver Jobs

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages