Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 23937 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.

Christians In Name Only

Philadelphia, PA

#485 Jan 1, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> please link the "laws" you have mentioned.
Hey mongoloid, the entire thread is based upon a law forbidding anti glbt discrimination.

If you wish to deny any such law exists then you don't understand the litigation that happened here. As you don't understand the earth is more than 10000 years old. No one can fix people who willfully go wrong right from the very premise.

I see your mind also latched onto the topic of nude men together. Can't quite help yourself, can you?
Christians In Name Only

Philadelphia, PA

#486 Jan 1, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
First Amendment to the United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
This also means that xstain fundie theocrats and bigots don't get to impose their backwards superstitions on secular society. It just means the government cannot stop you from hypocritically following the buybull, as you do.

Unless you think non fundie xstain owned businesses of all kinds and other faiths, including non fundie Christians, can refuse to serve freaky, ignorant evilgleicals on the basis of "religious beliefs."
d pantz

United States

#487 Jan 1, 2014
Christians In Name Only wrote:
<quoted text>
This also means that xstain fundie theocrats and bigots don't get to impose their backwards superstitions on secular society. It just means the government cannot stop you from hypocritically following the buybull, as you do.
Unless you think non fundie xstain owned businesses of all kinds and other faiths, including non fundie Christians, can refuse to serve freaky, ignorant evilgleicals on the basis of "religious beliefs."
sorry but choosing to run a privately owned business based on your personal beliefs ( a terrible business decision anyway, ask A&E) is not "imposing" anything on any free society. The government shouldn't have anything to do with it. happy New Year!
And yes fundie xstains and ignorant evangelicals can run a business how they see fit. If people don't like it they don't do business there, its that simple.(Love all the stereotypes btw, way to be the better person.) Should I file a lawsuit against my local bar for having a "ladies night" when its not my fault I was born a man? Maybe I should come up with a bunch of nasty names and unfair stereotypes for them. Happy new year.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#488 Jan 1, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
I know the differences.
I don't into a Kosher meat market only to attempt suing them later because they had no pork dumbshit.
Amazing. First you claim to know better, then you immediately turn around and prove, beyond even a shadow of a doubt, that you can't even fake having a clue. You do realize that Kosher meat markets also won't do an oil change on your car, don't you? The right of the customer is to the goods and services AVAILABLE from a public accommodation, if you want anything NOT on sale there, you can claim no right to it from them. A Kosher meat market has no legal obligation to provide you an oil change or a ham sandwich. You do however enjoy a right to everything that is available from a Kosher meat market on the same terms and conditions as everyone else, whether you yourself are keeping kosher or not. Just as the same sex couple had the right to go into a bakery and order a wedding cake that sells them.
Denver Dan wrote:
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.
Being polite about it doesn't excuse his action, he still illegally discriminated against them by denying them their right to service. God may forgive him, but the state doesn't have to. The state has an interest in preventing even the polite acts of discrimination by business owners in the public square. They were not their for his blessing or those of God, they were there just like anyone else ordering a wedding cake. We all enjoy the right to be who we are in public and should not have to go through day to day business worrying about being being ambushed by those who take offense at our being who we are, even if they do it as politely as he, by all accounts, did. He violated their civil right, politely, but he still violated it. His only punishment is to not do it again and to post notice to that effect. The baker retains the right to believe that God don't bless same sex marriages and the right to believe he isn't blessing of them either, his customers retain the right of shopping for wedding cakes in his establishment while homosexual.
Denver Dan wrote:
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.
Lord, have mercy. Oy. Laws against prohibiting discrimination in situations like this, intended to hopefully prevent them from happening in the first place, but designed to address them when they do. They took their right to business elsewhere AND notified the state that their right to that business had been denied to them for no other reason than shopping while gay and being ambushed with a polite God don't bless you and neither will I. The law is intended to be used in this manner. He broke it when he assumed God was going to bless his violation of their civil rights in the eyes of the state constitution. Sorry, but no. He didn't have a "no gay wedding cakes, God says so" sign in the window and couldn't surprise them with one when they came in.
Denver Dan wrote:
It's hardly akin to Rosa Parks getting arrested for sitting in between rows 1 to 12 on a city bus you idiot.
Yet still a violation of their civil rights, nonetheless. Colorado has already been down the road whether us gay folk enjoy equal protection rights. Been there, done that in that fair state. Romer v Evans settled that question in no uncertain terms. The couple's rights are a matter of settled law on the situation, in Colorado, you have the right to shop, even for wedding cakes, regardless of your sexual orientation.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#489 Jan 1, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
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.
Even in small towns, traffic is often blocked for purposes you have no personal interest in. Having a parade, not a special right, it's limited by permit requirements, but anyone can have one.. Parades are considered for entertainment purposes in NY, ass-less permitted, crotchless, no. PS, the wearing of ass-less chaps, not actually proof that someone is gay, even at a gay parade. We accept and respect the right to the expression of the quirks of our brothers and sisters in the family tree, even if you don't want to. If it's consensual and legal, it's their business and not for us to judge.
Denver Dan wrote:
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.
What we have handed to us here are our rights. He has been found guilty, ordered to obey the law in the future and to post notice that he will not be breaking it again. Exactly what this couple has sought from him all along, that he not do it to the next couple that walks in. There is still no word whether he is appealing this.
d pantz

United States

#490 Jan 1, 2014
Christians In Name Only wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey mongoloid, the entire thread is based upon a law forbidding anti glbt discrimination.
If you wish to deny any such law exists then you don't understand the litigation that happened here. As you don't understand the earth is more than 10000 years old. No one can fix people who willfully go wrong right from the very premise.
I see your mind also latched onto the topic of nude men together. Can't quite help yourself, can you?
interesting...is the definition of discrimination defined within the statute?
The age of the earth? I suppose you "know" what it is. All I know is that they keep digging up artifacts that carbon date intelligent man existing way before Darwin's theory placed us evolving.
I was talking about public indecency and since you bring it back up, no I can't get it out of my mind. I can't wait until there is a straight pride parade so I can run naked down a public street yelling about how much I love vagina.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#491 Jan 1, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> nor does it mention sexual preference. Or going against your personal beliefs because the state wants to tell you when your rights are protected and when they aren't. It just guarantees to protect our "god given rights". Freedom of religion comes to mind. Since churches are open to the public maybe we should make them preach Islam too. Screw their rights. There's no god anyway right, because you guys get all pissed off and say so...sure. that's it! All churches have to preach that there is no god. Why not? They never mention in the constitution that they shouldn't. It just mentions freedom of religion, which means having a group of of angry people tell you what to believe...right?
wrong. For starters I have a very strong faith in God. Churches are private organizations like the BSA. They aren't "businesses" (though most do run that way.)

I do notice that when religious folk pass laws that make it a crime for people to practice their religion you have no problem (see the law in Indiana about SSM) and don't yammer on and on about religious rights.

You only complain when the law is applied to your bigotry and you fall short.

Public laws for businesses in that State which bar discrimination are "the will of the people". Suddenly you folks want to do an end run around your own slogan.

Your hypocrisy is clear.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#492 Jan 1, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> sorry but choosing to run a privately owned business based on your personal beliefs ( a terrible business decision anyway, ask A&E) is not "imposing" anything on any free society. The government shouldn't have anything to do with it. happy New Year!
And yes fundie xstains and ignorant evangelicals can run a business how they see fit. If people don't like it they don't do business there, its that simple.(Love all the stereotypes btw, way to be the better person.) Should I file a lawsuit against my local bar for having a "ladies night" when its not my fault I was born a man? Maybe I should come up with a bunch of nasty names and unfair stereotypes for them. Happy new year.
So you don't like the "will of the people" now?

Poor thing. Your whole world is crumbling.
d pantz

United States

#493 Jan 1, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>So you don't like the "will of the people" now?
Poor thing. Your whole world is crumbling.
not if it imposes on what they do in their private life. Unless they're killing or physically harming somebody. Our individual rights should be protected from a "mob rule" will of the people by the constitution. Funny how you would probably use the same argument in a different scenario.
d pantz

United States

#494 Jan 1, 2014
And I probably wouldn't disagree. like the A&E thing, its their decision as a private business. Its their right to fire whoever they want for whatever reason.
d pantz

United States

#495 Jan 1, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>wrong. For starters I have a very strong faith in God. Churches are private organizations like the BSA. They aren't "businesses" (though most do run that way.)
I do notice that when religious folk pass laws that make it a crime for people to practice their religion you have no problem (see the law in Indiana about SSM) and don't yammer on and on about religious rights.
but an ordained minister provides a service to the public, does he not? "Religious folks" pass law? Oh so when its "them" (in your head) its not the "will of the people" is it? No, its a violation of your rights.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#496 Jan 1, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
So you wanna go there,
Right on ropesucker.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/dec/1...
I guess you didn't get that I was going for the absurdity of condemning a whole group of people on the basis of the deplorable behavior of a few of them. As for your heading in this direction. If these two are guilty of what they've been accused of, I'd have no real problem with the state going medieval on them. They earned themselves a hell here on earth. Their being part of our family in no way helps them and in no way condemns us, in the same way that being heterosexual parents shouldn't help those who do this, nor should their acts condemn the rest of you straight folk.
Denver Dan wrote:
You gays are more often on a fine line than not.
What line are you babbling about?
Denver Dan wrote:
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.
How is buying a wedding cake, just like straight folk, out of line? Your having ass-less chaps issues shouldn't be their problem if they haven't shown up wearing them.
Denver Dan wrote:
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.
He broke the law, has been found guilty and has been punished to the full extent of it, for us it's settled, the only ones who are complaining about this now is you.
Denver Dan wrote:
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 you choose to respond, or not respond, to what you perceive to be an illegal act is completely irrelevant to the discussion. A "gay" bar couldn't kick you out for being straight, but it can show you the door for disrespecting the rights of their other customers. If it's legal and consensual, it's not really any of your business. If you are offended by legal acts, you are free to go elsewhere, so are they, but your right to be there isn't violated by what they are legally doing.
Denver Dan wrote:
How is it some gay "couple" can push something like this bakery incident into the extremities it's reached cupcake???
Shopping while gay has been a protected right for so long in Colorado now, it's just rare when this kind of nonsense happens to us.
Denver Dan wrote:
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.
Do you actually have something resembling a point here?
Denver Dan wrote:
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.
A noble sentiment and an easy one to take for someone so completely unsympathetic to the couple having their rights violated by a baker blaming God.
d pantz

United States

#497 Jan 1, 2014
I'm agnostic! I guess that makes me a "might be religious, its possible but I don't know folk". Happy new year!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#498 Jan 1, 2014
d pantz wrote:
And I probably wouldn't disagree. like the A&E thing, its their decision as a private business. Its their right to fire whoever they want for whatever reason.
And it's your right to confuse a suspension with being fired.

Answer this.

Why are you opposing the will of the people who made it a crime for the baker to do what he did?

Would you claim religious freedom means whites only water fountains and rest rooms?

Why do fundamentalists whine about the war on Christmas and then try to use religious freedom to circumvent the law?

It's pretty obvious you and they use religious freedom only when it suits your bigotry. But if others try to use it you claim you are being persecuted.

Call the WHAAAmbulance

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#499 Jan 1, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> but an ordained minister provides a service to the public, does he not? "Religious folks" pass law? Oh so when its "them" (in your head) its not the "will of the people" is it? No, its a violation of your rights.
Stop tap dancing around the fact that you have no problem that Indiana makes it a crime for a minister to preside over a SSM while claiming you are a staunch supporter of religious freedom.

32 States have passed laws that deny people civil rights and you are happy with that because it's "religious freedom".

But when the religious freedom of the people of Colorado who made it a CRIME for the baker to do what they did, you claim that their States Rights don't count.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#500 Jan 1, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> but an ordained minister provides a service to the public, does he not? "Religious folks" pass law? Oh so when its "them" (in your head) its not the "will of the people" is it? No, its a violation of your rights.
Wrong.

Let's look at the 'religion' in question shall we?

Hebrews 13:17 ESV

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Romans 13:1-5 ESV

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Titus 3:1 ESV

Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,

1 Peter 2:13-15 ESV

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

Romans 12:17 ESV

Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.

THANKS for showing us that as far as you're concerned religious freedom means people can claim that their religion exempts them from the law even if they don't follow the rules of their religion.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#501 Jan 1, 2014
d pantz wrote:
I'm agnostic! I guess that makes me a "might be religious, its possible but I don't know folk". Happy new year!
Fine.

Now more about your religious freedom claim.

Using your logic, if a child starts whining I can claim religious freedom and do what the Bible says and stone the child to death, right?

Whenever a child disobeys their parents that child can be sold into slavery right? After all, according to you, laws that ban these things infringe on religious rights, right?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#502 Jan 1, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>And what if they refused some pervert who came in and wanted a big penis decoration on their cake? I suppose in your opinion, they'd have to accommodate him even though it's offensive and against their values. Or maybe in this case, you think the owner would have the right of refusal because it has nothing to do with advancing your gay agenda.
Ahh tyhe old "what if" gambit.

OK I'll play.

What if the baker stoned these two men to death and claimed religious freedom?

Do you think so many would be supporting him?

What if he sold one of his disobedient children into slavery?

Would all of you still be singing his praises?
d pantz

United States

#503 Jan 1, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.
Let's look at the 'religion' in question shall we?
Hebrews 13:17 ESV
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Romans 13:1-5 ESV
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
Titus 3:1 ESV
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,
1 Peter 2:13-15 ESV
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.
Romans 12:17 ESV
Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.
THANKS for showing us that as far as you're concerned religious freedom means people can claim that their religion exempts them from the law even if they don't follow the rules of their religion.
regardless of all the pointless bible quotes you just posted, ordained ministers do marry people and those marriages are recognized by the government. That's a public service. Are you trying to say it isn't and point to some religious babble as proof?
d pantz

United States

#504 Jan 1, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Fine.
Now more about your religious freedom claim.
Using your logic, if a child starts whining I can claim religious freedom and do what the Bible says and stone the child to death, right?
Whenever a child disobeys their parents that child can be sold into slavery right? After all, according to you, laws that ban these things infringe on religious rights, right?
well I already said as long as you're not causing physical harm but you ignore that. But since you mention it, why not? According to the secular way, its okay to kill millions upon millions of babies a year. How you equate anything I posted to hurting children is beyond me. It sure says a lot about yourself though... Didn't know you were pro life!

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 Respect71 19,136
Hillary Clinton OUR next President 1 hr Juanita 296
COMFORT DENTAL ....How Many of you feel Ripped ... (Apr '08) 4 hr Juanita 92
gay pride rainbow 15 hr Cindy 4
last post wins! (Feb '11) 19 hr Death Kitten 25,224
106.7 kbpi is the worst morning show ever! Sun Lorenzo 560
Naughty email chat! Sun Kstubb 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages