Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 3,824

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

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1123 Jan 26, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. It is YOUR understanding of what those rights mean that is questionable.
Why? because I believe the that marriage is between one-man and one-woman, and a civil union is an appropriate definition for a gay couple? Do you want government to arrest me now?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1124 Jan 26, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. DOMA was overturned because limiting marriage to only between opposite sex couples violates the constitutional guarantees of equal protection.
You are correct... However, no one has made it clear HOW a gay couple and a man-woman couple is equal, and there is NO LAW that has re defined marriage. Care to take a stab?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1125 Jan 26, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
No it doesn't! The 1st Amendment doesn't give ANYONE the right to ignore the law. You are WRONG.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Just because you believe a wedding cake is for gay couples, doesn’t mean ALL Americans have to believe that and be forced by government to serve gay wedding cakes.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1126 Jan 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Just because you believe a wedding cake is for gay couples, doesn’t mean ALL Americans have to believe that and be forced by government to serve gay wedding cakes.
No one requested a "gay wedding cake". They requested a *wedding cake*, which was something the baker makes regularly.

It's clear that creating a wedding cake is not something that goes against the baker's religious beliefs.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1127 Jan 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You just displaying your ignorance.
What it comes down to is a baker is being punished for his religious believs because your and the Judge believes he’s a bigot... Whether, that’s the truth or not, government openly punishing a man that did literally, nothing to the gay couple, sets a bad precedent for ALL Americans. Americans don’t have to agree with you that gays can be married and you advocating government punishment because of that removes the bakers rights, not yours.
(sigh)
You keep insisting the baker did nothing to the couple. Yet they treated them differently for the same reason many people treated blacks differently and under THE LAW they can't claim "religious freedom" to treat anyone the way blacks were once treated.

I believe the term is that to do so would be "morally repugnant".

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1128 Jan 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Just because you believe a wedding cake is for gay couples, doesn’t mean ALL Americans have to believe that and be forced by government to serve gay wedding cakes.
You keep insisting that the baker exercised his religious rights.

If that is true then under Leviticus he should have killed the couple.

You can't have it both ways.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1129 Jan 26, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>No one requested a "gay wedding cake". They requested a *wedding cake*, which was something the baker makes regularly.

It's clear that creating a wedding cake is not something that goes against the baker's religious beliefs.
1st amendment rights even apply to jerks.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1130 Jan 26, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>(sigh)
You keep insisting the baker did nothing to the couple. Yet they treated them differently for the same reason many people treated blacks differently and under THE LAW they can't claim "religious freedom" to treat anyone the way blacks were once treated.

I believe the term is that to do so would be "morally repugnant".
What did he do to them?

To compare gays to skin color is more of your intellectual dishonesty.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1131 Jan 26, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You keep insisting that the baker exercised his religious rights.

If that is true then under Leviticus he should have killed the couple.

You can't have it both ways.
Now more ignorance... You can't use government to force Americans to agree with you.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1132 Jan 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
1st amendment rights even apply to jerks.
It's not a 1A issue.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1133 Jan 26, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>It's not a 1A issue.
It is
Knock off purse seller

Denver, CO

#1134 Jan 26, 2014
The 1st amendment does apply here and it was violated.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1136 Jan 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is
No, it's not. Free exercise of religion does not include discrimination in public businesses.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1139 Jan 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Distracting from the facts doesn’t change the facts either.
I am not distracting from the facts, you are an idiot, and that is a fact.
Respect71 wrote:
Yes. Like you don’t have trouble with auto correct on a mobile device.
Yeah, given your "in quotes" response, I certainly believe that you are responding on a mobile device.
Respect71 wrote:
We are not talking about the law we are talking about the definition of marriage.
Does marriage exist as a protection of the law?
Can you indicate any compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman?
Respect71 wrote:
In all of human history marriage has only been between opposite sex... What is the “compelling governmental interest.” to redefine marriage?
A compelling governmental interest only comes in play if one wishes to infringe upon a right, like equal protection of the law.
Respect71 wrote:
Explain.
What is to explain? Are you an idiot? Read the 14th Amendment
Respect71 wrote:
Your are comparing skin color to gender? This is where your being intellectually dishonest.
Nope, I am comparing people to people. You are trying to compare skin color and sexuality, which provides similar results.
Respect71 wrote:
And let’s call a marriage a marriage. No time in human history did the great thinkers ever propose that gays should be included in the institution of “marriage” So what makes you better than them? What makes you better than me? Just because your gay? Because your say so? These are very serious questions and I can pretty much bet you will avoid them.
Dear idiot, can you offer a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional? I don't think you can.
Respect71 wrote:
Two people... You being a little too vague Father daughter? Two sisters? Uncle and nephew?
It's cute to watch you make a fool of yourself. There is a compelling state interest served by prohibiting incestuous marriage. Do you actually want me to further make a fool of you by detailing them?
Respect71 wrote:
I was asking your questions... Did you ignore the question marks?
No, I also didn't ignore, or give you a pass on, your stupidity.
Respect71 wrote:
This is the baker thread... I understand we are discussing other aspects (frankly we shouldn’t be) but my statement is in regards to not selling a wedding cake to a gay couple... You do understand this, right?
You have yet to detail any of the baker's rights that have been infringed. The judge, rendering the decision against the idiot, err baker, handsomely defeated all of the baker's arguments. No rights were infringed.
Respect71 wrote:
Like your past posts.
Congratulations, you are a moron.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1140 Jan 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
What did he do to them?
To compare gays to skin color is more of your intellectual dishonesty.
The law makes the comparison and dictates the penalties. The law defines sexual orientation as legally protected as race.There is no intellectual dishonesty on my part and only thinly veiled animus on your part.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1141 Jan 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now more ignorance... You can't use government to force Americans to agree with you.
I'm not. The people of the State made that decision.

Oh and Colorado's civil union law does not provide religious protections for businesses despite the urging of Republican lawmakers. Democrats argued that such a provision would give businesses cover to discriminate.

Guess people don't need it to be legal to claim they can use religion as a cover for breaking the law.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1143 Jan 27, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
These screw loose fundie screw ups better be careful or they'll wind up with pagan and jewish and muslim and ethical humanist and buddhist businesses able to toss ignorant fundies out on the sidewalk for reasons of "protected 'religious' belief."
Or, worse yet, enact Sharia Law in their places of business.

The small minded seldom think about the broader ramifications of their rhetoric.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1144 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I’m a liar because you say so? Who are you? A hater of Christians charging the government to punish those you don’t agree with.
You can’t explain it because they are not “equal”.
If you don’t allow people to be Christians in public then why would you be allowed to be gay in public?
Huh? You think religion and sexual orientation are the same thing? Religion is a choice. Sexual orientation is innate.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1145 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is
Not
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1146 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
What did he do to them?
To compare gays to skin color is more of your intellectual dishonesty.
It is literally the *same exact action* as what business owners were doing to black people 60 years ago.

-Diner sells food-
Black man: I'd like to order some food.
Manager: No, I will not sell you food because you are black.

-Bakery sells wedding cakes-
Gay couple: We'd like to order a wedding cake.
Baker: No, I will not sell you a wedding cake because you are gay.

It's intellectually dishonest to pretend this isn't the same thing. I understand why it's done though: shame.

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
Mexicans fear U.S. immigration plan (May '07) 1 hr ugh 18,683
Denver Health Medical Center, place of horrors (Jul '13) 1 hr Bry 22
COMFORT DENTAL ....How Many of you feel Ripped ... (Apr '08) 8 hr Tooth Fairy 88
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 9 hr mjjcpa 12,853
Why are blonde guys mean? (Dec '11) Fri Anonymous 725
last post wins! (Feb '11) Fri mr goodwrench 24,669
girls aressted in syria Fri SashaStarr 2
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 ]