Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Denver Post

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)

Comments
641 - 660 of 3,010 Comments Last updated 12 hrs ago
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#764 Jan 16, 2014
urinal deuce for mayor wrote:
Right, Idont understand the law... groups of people are "special" because of how they like to get their "junk off"... what's next? Anyway....the civil rights act doest go into that much detail so whoever cited it is a retard.
No, groups of people fall into protected categories because of a history (and ongoing practice) of discrimination against them.

And it's perceived sexual orientation that's protected. It's not about how they have sex. It doesn't even just apply to homosexuals; the protections apply to heterosexuals, too.

The Civil Rights Act is relevant because it negates the cry from the fundie cretin on board that a business owner may refuse service to anyone. A business owner may not. This is where the existing law, the Civil Rights Act, comes into play.

But you do not understand the law. And various federal and other laws and court decisions since '64 have expanded the protected categories to include things like veteran's status and sexual orientation.

You rube.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#765 Jan 16, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians have been around for centuries and in a Country that was founded on Judean- Christian principles it’s not likely we will disappear anytime soon. I’ll pray that you get used to that.
Hey mongoloid, that doesn't address the issue, and you fundies hardly represent "Christians," anyway. You're a sick subset of Christians. And this country is not Christian, is not a theocracy, and certainly is not a fundie mulah theocracy.

If the baker were acting out of "religious" beliefs he would similarly refuse wedding cakes to any "sinners," particularly those who are co habitating.

He does not. Because he's just acting out homophobia. The "religious" claim is just his excuse. He's a common bigot.
d pants

United States

#767 Jan 16, 2014
Christsharia Law wrote:
<quoted text>
No, groups of people fall into protected categories because of a history (and ongoing practice) of discrimination against them.
And it's perceived sexual orientation that's protected. It's not about how they have sex. It doesn't even just apply to homosexuals; the protections apply to heterosexuals, too.
The Civil Rights Act is relevant because it negates the cry from the fundie cretin on board that a business owner may refuse service to anyone. A business owner may not. This is where the existing law, the Civil Rights Act, comes into play.
But you do not understand the law. And various federal and other laws and court decisions since '64 have expanded the protected categories to include things like veteran's status and sexual orientation.
You rube.
was the case decided based on the civil rights act???
d pants

United States

#768 Jan 16, 2014
Here I will answer for you. NO! Maybe that's why that person called you retarded for bringing it up. Whether you understand the federal law or not, it was state law in col that impacted the decision. Which is statute and not common law. Silly beans.... the law you mention has very little to do with the story...

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#769 Jan 16, 2014
Christsharia Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey mongoloid, that doesn't address the issue, and you fundies hardly represent "Christians," anyway. You're a sick subset of Christians. And this country is not Christian, is not a theocracy, and certainly is not a fundie mulah theocracy.
If the baker were acting out of "religious" beliefs he would similarly refuse wedding cakes to any "sinners," particularly those who are co habitating.
He does not. Because he's just acting out homophobia. The "religious" claim is just his excuse. He's a common bigot.
“Hey mongoloid, that doesn't address the issue, and you fundies hardly represent "Christians," anyway.” So therefore what? How do you even tell the difference? Do you know the difference?

“You're a sick subset of Christians. And this country is not Christian, is not a theocracy, and certainly is not a fundie mulah theocracy.” Obviously you’re not a good judge if you’re placing me in that category.

“If the baker were acting out of "religious" beliefs he would similarly refuse wedding cakes to any "sinners," particularly those who are co habitating.” Again I will ask a question that you ignored... How do you know he hasn’t?
d pants

United States

#770 Jan 16, 2014
And the civil rights act has says absolutely nothing about sexual orientation.. at all. Not that it shouldn't but it does not
d pants

United States

#771 Jan 16, 2014
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_A...
Read it before you tell others they don't understand it because neither do you. Sorry.
Christaliban 768

Philadelphia, PA

#772 Jan 16, 2014
d pants wrote:
Here I will answer for you. NO! Maybe that's why that person called you retarded for bringing it up. Whether you understand the federal law or not, it was state law in col that impacted the decision. Which is statute and not common law. Silly beans.... the law you mention has very little to do with the story...
Hey mongoloid, as I said the principle of a business not being able to discriminate against whomever it wants to was established long ago with the Civil Rights Act.

It is completely relevant. That's when it was determined that places of public accommodation are subject to more rules than, say, a private club.

Now, building on that principle and on that specific law, society has moved forward to include more groups under the same principle. Such as veterans.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#773 Jan 16, 2014
d pants wrote:
And the civil rights act has says absolutely nothing about sexual orientation.. at all. Not that it shouldn't but it does not
You are correct
.
However; it does specifically and emphatically state 'religion'; which is the excuse the baker presented to the court
http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/...
.
He refused to bake a cake and cooked his goose instead
Christaliban 768

Philadelphia, PA

#774 Jan 16, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know he hasn’t?
The bigot baker would have to prove he ever did such a thing. And such a move by the bigot baker - which would never occur to him - would make the news and quite possibly result in its own lawsuit.

Anyway, rational people know he has not barred other "sinners" from buying cakes because jeeesus seyz, "we're all 'sinners.'" He never would have sold any wedding cakes, you cretin, you disingenuous slime.
d pants

United States

#775 Jan 16, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct
.
However; it does specifically and emphatically state 'religion'; which is the excuse the baker presented to the court
http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/...
.
He refused to bake a cake and cooked his goose instead
not what the decision was based on either.
d pants

United States

#776 Jan 16, 2014
Christaliban 768 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey mongoloid, as I said the principle of a business not being able to discriminate against whomever it wants to was established long ago with the Civil Rights Act.
It is completely relevant. That's when it was determined that places of public accommodation are subject to more rules than, say, a private club.
Now, building on that principle and on that specific law, society has moved forward to include more groups under the same principle. Such as veterans.
lol! The decision was not based on the civil rights act, period. The only point I was making. Saying it was over and over after you have just been proved that it wasn't means you're either completely ignorant of the laws cited by the court or you're insane. Have a good evening.
d pants

United States

#777 Jan 16, 2014
For the last time: the judges decision was based on col state statute, not the civil rights act which is federal law. If you're going to tell people they don't understand the law you should at least know what f**king law you're talking about.
Jeeesus Sheeeria

Philadelphia, PA

#778 Jan 16, 2014
d pants wrote:
<quoted text> was the case decided based on the civil rights act???
Hey mongoloid:

The case is not decided yet (fully.)

No one claimed anything of the sort you posted in your idiocy.

The point I clearly made for the benefit of fundie mouthbreathers was that a business cannot as a matter of principle simply "refuse service to anyone," as the fundies and moronic bigots are fond of maintaining.

And I indicated that that principle has been expanded upon from the Civil Rights Act to include other groups, by other laws, and by other court decisions.

You can git ur hom skool teechur to hewlp you read what I did post.
Jeeesus Sheeeria

Philadelphia, PA

#779 Jan 16, 2014
d pants wrote:
<quoted text> The decision was not based on the civil rights act....
No one said that. That was your straw man fever dream.

The principle that a business owner may not discriminate against protected groups was established by the Civil Rights Act.

The reason to keep mentioning that is that the fundies and tee baggr racists hate that fact, and hate the very principle established by the Civil Rights Act.

That's even before reaching the expansions of the principle to other groups that the fundies and their politically inbred cousins object to.
Jeeesus Sheeeria

Philadelphia, PA

#780 Jan 16, 2014
d pants wrote:
For the last time: the judges decision was based on col state statute....
No one claimed that.

You were and are unable and unwilling to follow what was stated, Cletus.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#781 Jan 17, 2014
Christaliban 768 wrote:
<quoted text>
The bigot baker would have to prove he ever did such a thing. And such a move by the bigot baker - which would never occur to him - would make the news and quite possibly result in its own lawsuit.
Anyway, rational people know he has not barred other "sinners" from buying cakes because jeeesus seyz, "we're all 'sinners.'" He never would have sold any wedding cakes, you cretin, you disingenuous slime.
“rational people” would then provide evidence to support their statements.

It doesn’t matter what you think about the baker, our Constitution allows for him to support marriage as he sees it.
Jesus Latter Day Faints

Philadelphia, PA

#782 Jan 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“rational people” would then provide evidence to support their statements.
It doesn’t matter what you think about the baker, our Constitution allows for him to support marriage as he sees it.
No, cretin, a rational person would have presented such a defense at trial. The bigot did not.

Obviously if a bigot baker ever did turn away a co habitating couple who wanted a wedding cake that would make the news.

Cletus, you are demanding what is called, "proof of a negative." Those of us who realize the earth is billions of years old, not thousands, realize such a demand or endeavor is nonsense.

BTW, I never thought you were a troll. I just assume you are what you present yourself as: As an extremely stupid and disingenuous xstain mullah. The sort that's currently being laughed out of the court of public opinion.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#784 Jan 17, 2014
Jesus Latter Day Faints wrote:
<quoted text>No, cretin, a rational person would have presented such a defense at trial. The bigot did not.

Obviously if a bigot baker ever did turn away a co habitating couple who wanted a wedding cake that would make the news.

Cletus, you are demanding what is called, "proof of a negative." Those of us who realize the earth is billions of years old, not thousands, realize such a demand or endeavor is nonsense.

BTW, I never thought you were a troll. I just assume you are what you present yourself as: As an extremely stupid and disingenuous xstain mullah. The sort that's currently being laughed out of the court of public opinion.
I am an American and I will stand up for the Constitution especially if the judge makes the wrong decision.

Based on your arguments you seem to believe this is religion vs gay, when it's Americans vs government.

I support gay pride events (even though they break numerous laws to "express" themselves) no matter how vulgar and repulsive I find it... I also support the baker no matter how vulgar and repulsive I find him.

It's not for the government to force upon us anyone belief.
Jesus Latter Day Faints

Philadelphia, PA

#785 Jan 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am an American and I will stand up for the Constitution especially if the judge makes the wrong decision.
Based on your arguments you seem to believe this is religion vs gay, when it's Americans vs government.
I support gay pride events (even though they break numerous laws to "express" themselves) no matter how vulgar and repulsive I find it... I also support the baker no matter how vulgar and repulsive I find him.
It's not for the government to force upon us anyone belief.
Hey moron fundie, I see you dropped the demand to prove a negative, something that obviously never happened - the baker obviously never refused a wedding cake to a str8 couple "living in sin."

The bigot baker is motivated by simple homophobia, not anything "religious," or else he'd be making sure none of his customers had borne false witness...in the way you continually do.

You don't have to believe anything, moron. We just don't allow acts of discrimination against various groups in places of public accommodations. You may be a sexually disordered bigot in your home and in your house of worship of bigotry.

I like your insistence that you will disobey court decisions. That's what we need: More mullahs going off to jail or "out with their boots on."

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 33 min KarlVIIIII 12,414
last post wins! (Feb '11) 49 min mr goodwrench 24,647
You rule the planet. How do you save the human... (Dec '12) 9 hr Kawalski 1,302
Relocating advice Fri Jjdenver3 10
Morgan Ingram was not murdered nor stalked. (Nov '12) Thu curious 37
annette marion tortures w/cpms yvette handfield... Thu ANNETTE MARION KI... 1
Play the "end of the word" game (Jul '11) Thu Hannah V 4,211
•••
•••
•••

Denver Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••