Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 3,728

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

“ 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.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#444 Dec 30, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
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.
He isn't operating a church, which are by design, not places of public accommodation, but places of private, collective free association with a shared religious belief for a common purpose. He is not similarly situated to them in regards to the right refuse service being protected as a 1st Amendment right. As a private free association, a church has the right to refuse any and all service to everyone who isn't in accordance with their doctrine, unless the reason they have run afoul of of doctrine is because of their race. He is running a place of public accommodation, homosexuals are part of the public, he sells wedding cakes, homosexuals buy wedding cakes. He has not limited his wedding service to only a private, collective free association of individuals with a shared religious belief for a common purpose, but anyone who walked through his door, as long as they were of the opposite sex.
Respect71 wrote:
(link edited for length)
I took the time to scroll through all those photos you found. Many outlandish and in your mind outrageous costumes on some of the folk, interspersed with a few crowd shots showing the tens of thousands not dressed outlandishly and/or outrageously. The outlandish/outrageous make for the more memorable photographs. Being outlandish/outrageous does not necessarily equal indecent/illegal. I saw one shot which included full female nudity (Toronto) and three full breast shots, none of them belonging to anyone physically female. No male genitalia to be seen anywhere. No sexual acts, real or overly simulated. No minors dressed provocatively. Just where do you see the indecency? Just because a few are dressed for a more interesting occasion than others doesn't make their self-expression indecent/illegal. Sorry.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#445 Dec 30, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
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.
One more time since you obviously haven't been paying attention. He violated their right to public accommodation in the refusal of his services. The judge hearing this case did not believe that the 1st amendment extends to violating their civil rights of non-believers and found him guilty of breaking the law. You have not offered any reason why this ruling was wrong, just that it has to be wrong.

A reality that you aren't getting is that pride parades have a long history of being inclusive,, they don't keep folk out on the basis of the suspect classifications under the law. Even groups opposed are allowed to protest.
Respect71 wrote:
Gays have “absolute”“civil right” to purchase a wedding cake? Like I said above…
What part of the right to public accommodation aren't you getting. The government defines its limits, not individual business owners. In this case, this couple had the same right to a wedding cake as any other couple on the same terms and conditions. He didn't have the 1st Amendment right to violate that right.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
You are being obtuse, if you find it insulting to have that pointed out, you might try being less obtuse. The 1st Amendment did not excuse his illegal act, you have offered no rational explanation why it should and why it should give him more rights than a business owner who doesn't blame god for the same act. Our government has a very clear interest in preventing random acts of discrimination, the owner has an obligation to abide by those laws.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#446 Dec 31, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
“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.” The 1st Amendment removes the 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.
“I brought up the Salem witch trials only to explain the mindset of our founding fathers.” Our Founding father came from a lad where the State was the Church… The “mindset of our founding fathers” was to allow a freedom than no one had known before.
“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.” Not selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is nowhere close to “an absolute right or freedom.” but is absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment.
“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.” Based on your postings it is becoming more apparent that you are bigoted towards the baker and are willing to disregard our Constitution in favor of government forcing him to believe something he can’t.

“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.” Because it is. A person who believes that marriage is only for a man-woman relationship and bakes cakes that symbolizes this relationship just like the Church has the right to marry only man-woman couples. You don’t understand this because you believe that marriage is equal for any sort of couple, and that’s fine but the government can’t force you to believe otherwise just like the case of the baker, nor is it in their interest (like you claim).
“He isn't operating a church, which are by design, not places of public accommodation, but places of private, collective free association with a shared religious belief for a common purpose.” It doesn’t matter.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#447 Dec 31, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
“He is not similarly situated to them in regards to the right refuse service being protected as a 1st Amendment right.” Why would the Church be protected and he, as a man of faith, not be?
“As a private free association, a church has the right to refuse any and all service to everyone who isn't in accordance with their doctrine, unless the reason they have run afoul of of doctrine is because of their race. He is running a place of public accommodation, homosexuals are part of the public, he sells wedding cakes, homosexuals buy wedding cakes. He has not limited his wedding service to only a private, collective free association of individuals with a shared religious belief for a common purpose, but anyone who walked through his door, as long as they were of the opposite sex.” You’re wrong.

“I took the time to scroll through all those photos you found. Many outlandish and in your mind outrageous costumes on some of the folk, interspersed with a few crowd shots showing the tens of thousands not dressed outlandishly and/or outrageously. The outlandish/outrageous make for the more memorable photographs. Being outlandish/outrageous does not necessarily equal indecent/illegal. I saw one shot which included full female nudity (Toronto) and three full breast shots, none of them belonging to anyone physically female. No male genitalia to be seen anywhere. No sexual acts, real or overly simulated. No minors dressed provocatively. Just where do you see the indecency? Just because a few are dressed for a more interesting occasion than others doesn't make their self-expression indecent/illegal. Sorry.” Don’t make me post the pictures that are edited out, and don’t try to fool anyone who has never attended an event. There is a great deal of indecency at these events and the government allows it. The sad thing is you know this and play it off as if it doesn’t happen. Truthfully, there is no place for intellectual dishonesty in this discussion.

“One more time since you obviously haven't been paying attention. He violated their right to public accommodation in the refusal of his services. The judge hearing this case did not believe that the 1st amendment extends to violating their civil rights of non-believers and found him guilty of breaking the law. You have not offered any reason why this ruling was wrong, just that it has to be wrong.” I have and when the case goes further just like the photog case it will be found Constitutional.

“A reality that you aren't getting is that pride parades have a long history of being inclusive,, they don't keep folk out on the basis of the suspect classifications under the law. Even groups opposed are allowed to protest.” LOL… You are correct however the content of these evens denture many including those who support friends who are gay.

“What part of the right to public accommodation aren't you getting. The government defines its limits, not individual business owners.” This Country is founded on INDIVIDUAL rights… It’s not the government’s job to define if a man believe in gay couples or not.
“In this case, this couple had the same right to a wedding cake as any other couple on the same terms and conditions.” Same terms and conditions? Do you mean they have to be a man-woman couple that is getting married? The problem is that the baker doesn’t see that as the SAME.
“ He didn't have the 1st Amendment right to violate that right.” The baker does have the right and you have shown no rights removed from the gay couple.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#448 Dec 31, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
“You are being obtuse, if you find it insulting to have that pointed out, you might try being less obtuse.” LOL… Like I said it changes nothing.
“The 1st Amendment did not excuse his illegal act, you have offered no rational explanation why it should and why it should give him more rights than a business owner who doesn't blame god for the same act. Our government has a very clear interest in preventing random acts of discrimination, the owner has an obligation to abide by those laws.” Not if it infringes upon is personal religious belief.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#449 Dec 31, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
The 1st Amendment removes the 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.
The Government's interest in preventing discrimination outweighs his right to practice what he preaches in this case. It's why he was found guilty. The fact that he only selectively discriminated doesn't excuse his selected act of discrimination. They had an equal right to ALL goods and services on offer under the same terms and conditions as everybody else, a right he violated.
Respect71 wrote:
The “mindset of our founding fathers” was to allow a freedom than no one had known before.
But not absolute freedom.
Respect71 wrote:
but is absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment.
No it is not and you have yet to even try to prove how and why it is other than it being an absolute right.
Respect71 wrote:
Based on your postings it is becoming more apparent that you are bigoted towards the baker and are willing to disregard our Constitution in favor of government forcing him to believe something he can’t.
I'm all in favor of the Constitution and the 1st Amendment, I'm not in favor of special rights for believers, as you are. He simply does not enjoy the 1st Amendment right to engage in otherwise illegal acts of discrimination against others, regardless of who he claims the right of moral disapproval over. Such a right does not exist and should not exist.
Respect71 wrote:
Because it is. A person who believes that marriage is only for a man-woman relationship and bakes cakes that symbolizes this relationship just like the Church has the right to marry only man-woman couples. You don’t understand this because you believe that marriage is equal for any sort of couple, and that’s fine but the government can’t force you to believe otherwise just like the case of the baker, nor is it in their interest (like you claim).
Once again, he is running a place of public accommodation and not a private free association of individuals. Wedding cake purchasers aren't petitioning for the moral approval of their wedding by any of those who provide non-religious services to them, they shouldn't have to. The state has a compelling interest in preventing random acts of discrimination by businesses in the public square. You have offered no rational reason why they wouldn't. The fact that the state has such an interest and what they are doing doesn't only restrict the acts of people of faith, those of faith's 1st Amendment right to act according to their beliefs does not outweigh that.
Respect71 wrote:
It doesn’t matter.
Actually it does and only you would confuse a public bakery with a private place of worship.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#450 Dec 31, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Like I said it changes nothing.
I noticed, you and reality don't get along real well.
Respect71 wrote:
Not if it infringes upon is personal religious belief.
Case in point. The right to his religious belief, not an absolute right. I've explained the level of strict I've scrutiny required for the government to be able to limit that right. I've explained the government's compelling interest in preventing discrimination by ALL business owners. I've explained how this compelling interest outweighs his claims of a right to practice what he preaches. You've pretty much ignored all these facts and have stuck with your argument of it just has to be his 1st Amendment right, with no rhyme nor reason.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#451 Dec 31, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Why would the Church be protected and he, as a man of faith, not be?
Because he is not in a similar situation to them, not even remotely. He is operating a business open to the public as defined by civil law, they are operating private spaces that they are free to limit to only like minded individuals. Notice the differences?
Respect71 wrote:
“As a private free association, a church has the right to refuse any and all service to everyone who isn't in accordance with their doctrine, unless the reason they have run afoul of of doctrine is because of their race. He is running a place of public accommodation, homosexuals are part of the public, he sells wedding cakes, homosexuals buy wedding cakes. He has not limited his wedding service to only a private, collective free association of individuals with a shared religious belief for a common purpose, but anyone who walked through his door, as long as they were of the opposite sex.” You’re wrong.
So you claim, but I notice a complete failure on your part to even try to prove it. When I tell you that you are mistaken, I prove why. You might want to try it some time. If you're right, it can be fun.
Respect71 wrote:
Don’t make me post the pictures that are edited out, and don’t try to fool anyone who has never attended an event. There is a great deal of indecency at these events and the government allows it. The sad thing is you know this and play it off as if it doesn’t happen. Truthfully, there is no place for intellectual dishonesty in this discussion.
Wait a second, you promoted the first batch of photos as being proof enough that decency laws were violated willy-dilly at gay pride parades, not that we would have to wait for your private stash of pictures as proof. Do illegal acts occur at pride parades, of course, crimes occur everywhere you have large groups of people gather. Do acts of indecency occur at gay pride parades, they do, but they are nowhere near as rampant as you imagine them to be and you can run into public acts of indecency just about anywhere.

. These parades aren't orgies and organizers actively discourage inappropriate and/or illegal acts. I have been a marshal at a half dozen parades, there to actively discourage illegal acts and acts of public misbehavior. Only the year I got the privilege of standing between parade participants and those wonderful Christians from Westboro, for about seven hours, three water bottles and an egg I took for them, was it a remotely eventful gig, other than suggesting to those who may have been indulging themselves more than necessary, that they needed to find a safe way home.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#452 Dec 31, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
I have and when the case goes further just like the photog case it will be found Constitutional.
So you claim, but not once in the history of such cases has such a right been recognized, on any level, in any case. Not even the Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey was allowed that right in refusing to rent a public pavilion to a lesbian couple. A right they did have when they returned the pavilion to private use, at the loss of a property tax exemption for beachfront property open to the public and refused to rent to another same sex couple..
Respect71 wrote:
LOL… You are correct however the content of these evens denture many including those who support friends who are gay.
Guilt by association, the bad acts of a few of us condemn all of us. Salina is a city of less than 50,000 people, in the last year and a half, four children younger than the age of three have been physically abused to death, with one or more of their biological parents at least complicit in each. Heterosexuals, gotta love 'em.
Respect71 wrote:
This Country is founded on INDIVIDUAL rights… It’s not the government’s job to define if a man believe in gay couples or not.
They're not asking him to change his beliefs, he is still free to believe that same sex couples are morally unfit for marriage, he however, is not free to practice what he believes on those who may or may not share in them. He is selling wedding cakes not his blessings or those of God. This country was founded with a concern for individual rights, but the only individuals it covered were those who were free, white, over the age of 21 and owned property. Individual rights are not absolute, there are legitimate limits, this being one of them.
Respect71 wrote:
Same terms and conditions? Do you mean they have to be a man-woman couple that is getting married? The problem is that the baker doesn’t see that as the SAME.[/Quote]His problem, not theirs.
[QUOTE who="Respect71"] The baker does have the right and you have shown no rights removed from the gay couple.
now you are deliberately lying, because I have repeatedly told you that he violated their right to his goods and services. Shame on you.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#454 Dec 31, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Because he is not in a similar situation to them, not even remotely. He is operating a business open to the public as defined by civil law, they are operating private spaces that they are free to limit to only like minded individuals. Notice the differences?
I know the differences.

I don't into a Kosher meat market only to attempt suing them later because they had no pork dumbshit.

This baker didn't chase these two little delicate gay men out with a broom either. He merely advised it went against his religious belief.

These gays are utilizing business law in such an improper fashion through this obvious display of purposeful harm against one f-ing bakery in all of Denver who wouldn't bake them their special nuptual sweetened delight.

It's hardly akin to Rosa Parks getting arrested for sitting in between rows 1 to 12 on a city bus you idiot.

Have some respect. Queers like you seem to demand it even when your sick brethren are parading in front of the public wearing nothing but thongs on a clear sunny day blocking traffic or walking down the street in ASSLESS chaps.

You gays push this bakery into harms way and I myself will have no problem in seeing gays dancing around in offensive fashion get their asses handed to them.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#455 Dec 31, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text> Heterosexuals, gotta love 'em.
.
So you wanna go there,

Right on ropesucker.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/dec/1...

You gays are more often on a fine line than not.

You have full rights to share the sidewalk of life with everyone else but you too should be held accountable for acts that are out of line.

The obvious animosity some of you gays hold against a single baker who would bake these two gay men anything but a wedding cake over his religious belief demonstrates you're WAY out of line.

I don't go into gay bars only to start shit that I'm offended and attempt lawsuits based on what I and many others would deem indecent exposure by a bunch of nipple pierced half dressed men advertising their base asses like damn feline in heat.

How is it some gay "couple" can push something like this bakery incident into the extremities it's reached cupcake???

It may not be Frank Fundementalist's world out there Ace but is sure the HELL doesn't belong to the gay community to screw up either.

Live and let live. Funny how you gays screamed this rallying cry not but a few years ago but now it means jackshit to you due to your special interests.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#456 Dec 31, 2013
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I know....
Getting harder for you to be a bigot with closet issues.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#457 Dec 31, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
. These parades aren't orgies and organizers actively discourage inappropriate and/or illegal acts. I have been a marshal at a half dozen parades, there to actively discourage illegal acts and acts of public misbehavior. Only the year I got the privilege of standing between parade participants and those wonderful Christians from Westboro, for about seven hours, three water bottles and an egg I took for them, was it a remotely eventful gig, other than suggesting to those who may have been indulging themselves more than necessary, that they needed to find a safe way home.
BULLSHIT.

These "parades" are nothing more than displays of indecent nudity and sexually charged behavior held in the most populated areas of cities while clogging main traffic thoroughfares liar.

I've seen two myself, one in which nudity and men practically dry HUMPING each others hairy asses was commonplace.

You can find hundreds of sick ass pictures of the participants on the internet if you so wish. I'm sick of finding this hard proof against gay parades only to have flaming losers like you deny it doesn't happen.

Why not show respect and keep that shit in a private venue like an arena???

You don't give respect so you'll not get any in return gay boy. Don't bunch up one day when you pinch the wrong guy's ass and he pummels you into a coma friend.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#458 Dec 31, 2013
Christsharia Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Getting harder for you to be a bigot with closet issues.
I'd say it's been pretty tough for you to escape from being nothing more than some petty smartass myself.

LOL!!!

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#459 Dec 31, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“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.” The 1st Amendment removes the 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.
“I brought up the Salem witch trials only to explain the mindset of our founding fathers.” Our Founding father came from a lad where the State was the Church… The “mindset of our founding fathers” was to allow a freedom than no one had known before.
“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.” Not selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is nowhere close to “an absolute right or freedom.” but is absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment.
“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.” Based on your postings it is becoming more apparent that you are bigoted towards the baker and are willing to disregard our Constitution in favor of government forcing him to believe something he can’t.
“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.” Because it is. A person who believes that marriage is only for a man-woman relationship and bakes cakes that symbolizes this relationship just like the Church has the right to marry only man-woman couples. You don’t understand this because you believe that marriage is equal for any sort of couple, and that’s fine but the government can’t force you to believe otherwise just like the case of the baker, nor is it in their interest (like you claim).
“He isn't operating a church, which are by design, not places of public accommodation, but places of private, collective free association with a shared religious belief for a common purpose.” It doesn’t matter.
Gee I've read the Constitution and I don't remember wedding cakes mentioned in the 1st Amendment, or the 10th.

You must have a different copy than the one our government uses.

Your religious freedom BS was tried in the 60's with blacks, remember?

But have a Happy New Year. I've enjoyed the laughs you've provided.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#460 Dec 31, 2013
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
BULLSHIT.
These "parades" are nothing more than displays of indecent nudity and sexually charged behavior held in the most populated areas of cities while clogging main traffic thoroughfares liar.
I've seen two myself, one in which nudity and men practically dry HUMPING each others hairy asses was commonplace.
You can find hundreds of sick ass pictures of the participants on the internet if you so wish. I'm sick of finding this hard proof against gay parades only to have flaming losers like you deny it doesn't happen.
Why not show respect and keep that shit in a private venue like an arena???
You don't give respect so you'll not get any in return gay boy. Don't bunch up one day when you pinch the wrong guy's ass and he pummels you into a coma friend.
Your first word summed up the rest of your post.

I have HAD IT with the LIE that you folks see nudity at Pride Parades. Public nudity is a crime and would be punished, Not only that but any future parades would never be possible. I also notice never a peep when you get flashed a nice set of female boobs during Mardi Gras, your bachelor party, and many other occasions. In fact you'd fight for a woman's right to wear a thong at a public pool.

Trust me Gomer, we know the laws and you don't.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#461 Dec 31, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>They're not asking him to change his beliefs, he is still free to believe that same sex couples are morally unfit for marriage, he however, is not free to practice what he believes on those who may or may not share in them. He is selling wedding cakes not his blessings or those of God. This country was founded with a concern for individual rights, but the only individuals it covered were those who were free, white, over the age of 21 and owned property. Individual rights are not absolute, there are legitimate limits, this being one of them.
<quoted text>now you are deliberately lying, because I have repeatedly told you that he violated their right to his goods and services. Shame on you.
It's his place of business. Think we should start funneling those Aryan Nations member to any and every gay establishment and force those business owners into obviously difficult situations by catering to people like the KKK members who lived within a tri-state area of any chosen gay enterprise???

Gee.....you wouldn't like that now would you queer???

And on this one you ARE creating a situation where you are telling this baker what to believe.

They don't make Amish go to war. Maybe we in turn should imprison them next given they too might hop the border when needed or not allow two fat, greasy and hairy men to hold hands in their chicken coops to buy so much as a single grade A egg.

You don't live in the world the African Americans faced in 1952 friend. Not even close. You're allowed a wide berth to carry on like everyone else but you in turn need to understand the meaning of mutual respect. There were a MILLION f-ing bakeries that would gladly take in this gay "couple" so why push it???

Level 1

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#462 Dec 31, 2013
fr Denver Dan:

>...These "parades" are nothing more than displays of indecent nudity and sexually charged behavior held in the most populated areas of cities while clogging main traffic thoroughfares liar....<

Nobody is forced to go see them. Now, run along and play until bedtime. You're interrupting, and the grownups want to talk. Besides, only adults are allowed to stay up until midnight on New Year's Eve, and you do NOT qualify as one.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#463 Dec 31, 2013
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
BULLSHIT.
These "parades" are nothing more than displays of indecent nudity and sexually charged behavior held in the most populated areas of cities while clogging main traffic thoroughfares liar.
I've seen two myself, one in which nudity and men practically dry HUMPING each others hairy asses was commonplace.
You can find hundreds of sick ass pictures of the participants on the internet if you so wish. I'm sick of finding this hard proof against gay parades only to have flaming losers like you deny it doesn't happen.
Why not show respect and keep that shit in a private venue like an arena???
You don't give respect so you'll not get any in return gay boy. Don't bunch up one day when you pinch the wrong guy's ass and he pummels you into a coma friend.
ooo lil danny is sick of having to search the internet for pics of naked men's butts.

Pretty weird you'd spend the time finding all those pics if they didn't turn you on.

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) 1 hr Carlos 12,813
COP CRimes : Trooper Dope Dealer /Trooper ... (Jun '12) 11 hr Alice 3
Attire for Formal Weddings 19 hr kately 1
Teacher back in class after Bush-Hitler comparison (Mar '06) Sun Swedenforever 64
T r a m a d o l & X A N A X and much more Sun Deal 1
Gay/Bi teens in/near Denver, Colorado Oct 18 Teen1616 2
What is Credence Independent Auditors and Advis... Oct 17 cuthbertellen 3
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 ]