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
941 - 960 of 2,883 Comments Last updated 13 hrs ago

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1122
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Some parts aren't contradictory at all.
So what part of the Bible is a Christian business following when they refuse service to gays and lesbians? There are 7 passages that speak of same sex activity in the Bible. The book of Romans is often used to say that God views same sex activity as a sin.
Romans 1:26-28 ESV
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.”
But that passage says nothing about how others should treat those who sin. The answers are found later on in Chapter 13.
Romans 13:1-5 (ESV)
Submission to the Authorities
“13 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. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 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, 4 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. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”
Now I am sure that these people honestly want to follow their faith. Yet they are not following the instructions given. In fact they ignore a previous warning given at the very beginning of the text.
Romans 2 (ESV)
God's Righteous Judgment
“2 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.”
Seems to me we need to remember the old adage about where the horse should be placed. Nowhere in any of these passages does it tell these people to do what they are claiming it tells them to do.
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.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1126
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1129
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1130
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1131
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1132
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
1st amendment rights even apply to jerks.
It's not a 1A issue.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1133
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>It's not a 1A issue.
It is
Knock off purse seller

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1134
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

The 1st amendment does apply here and it was violated.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1136
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1139
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1140
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1141
Jan 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1143
Jan 27, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1144
Jan 27, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1145
Jan 27, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is
Not

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 Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••