Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 57983 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.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1149 Jan 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's not. Free exercise of religion does not include discrimination in public businesses.
It does if one believes a wedding cake is for a husband and wife.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1150 Jan 27, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
You lying drunk, we're not discussing speech rights.
We're discussing what a bigot you are - because you're opposed every single advance in glbt rights - and what a theocrat you are, because none of you fake Christian fundie bigots would ever extend such "religious" freedoms to a muslim business tossing insane, fundie customers out onto the street.
Freeeky mullahs have got to go.
We are discussing religious rights… I’m not charging the government to prosecute a gay couple for wanting to buy a cake, but you charge the government with punishing a man for literally doing nothing to the gay couple.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1151 Jan 27, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
“I am not distracting from the facts, you are an idiot, and that is a fact.” I disagree with you and because of that you call me names. That’s the fact.
“Yeah, given your "in quotes" response, I certainly believe that you are responding on a mobile device.” LOL… Your choice.
“Does marriage exist as a protection of the law?&#8232;Can you indicate any compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman?” I can. But I prefer the government to stay out of affairs of the heart. Meaning, men and women can marry and gays can be together however they want within their definition.

“A compelling governmental interest only comes in play if one wishes to infringe upon a right, like equal protection of the law.” Explain how a gay relationship and a man-woman relationship is equal as to fall under the “equal protection of the law.”

“What is to explain? Are you an idiot? Read the 14th Amendment “ I know both amendments and if you can’t explain what your intent is by stating,““None of which has any impact upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.” Then we can assume your point and opinion is null and void.

“Nope, I am comparing people to people. You are trying to compare skin color and sexuality, which provides similar results.” No, I am pointing to the fact that the relationships are DIFFERENT, and the centuries long definition of marriage has never included same-sex. That’s a fact.

“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.” The definition of marriage between a man-woman relationships has been a what makes strong, healthy and progressed human societies. It provides defined significant roles that not only make a family structured and strong but contributes positively to their community and societies. Marriage is an institution that has and should be a solid building block to progress and grow human society. Same-sex marriage is causing sexual confusion among young people where there is no need, and imposing a belief and lifestyle upon Americans who believe the nuclear family is the best way to achieve a great and continued society (removing our 1st amendment rights). I good man once wrote,“Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing” and “Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized.” Obviously, that’s what you and others on here are about. NOT Freedom

“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?” If you can ONLY define marriage as between TWO PEOPLE, then you are a fool to believe that marriage won’t diverge into those directions. That’s why it is so important to define the Marriage relationship as between one-man and one-woman, and the gay relationship as what it is... Especially if you are so willing to use a vague definition as “two people”.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1153 Jan 27, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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.
LOL... Sex orientation is a protected race?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” If you’re willing to charge government to remove rights of Christians for disagreeing with you then your aren't an American and this is the wrong Country for you.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1154 Jan 27, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? You think religion and sexual orientation are the same thing? Religion is a choice. Sexual orientation is innate.
Really? Then please explain Bisexuals and Transexuals.

This is America where ALL are free to be who we are.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1155 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
It does if one believes a wedding cake is for a husband and wife.
No, it doesn't. Religious beliefs do not override anti-discrimination laws. If they did, then anti-discrimination laws couldn't even exist. People would be able to refuse to serve black people. People could fire an employee for being a Jew. People could kick a family out of their apartment because they're Irish.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1156 Jan 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
“It is literally the *same exact action* as what business owners were doing to black people 60 years ago.” It’s not... Skin color is not sexual orientation.

“It's intellectually dishonest to pretend this isn't the same thing. I understand why it's done though: shame.” It’s intellectually dishonest for you to even compare race to sex.
And if you truly did understand why he didn’t sell the wedding cake to persons who are not husband and wife, then you wouldn’t stand for government prosecution.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1158 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Same-sex marriage is causing sexual confusion among young people where there is no need
How so? Allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't change anyone's sexual orientation.
Respect71 wrote:
“Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing”
lol, is this a serious quote? How will it change how society is structured? We'll go from having straight married couples and gay couples who aren't married...to both sets of couples being married. Oh no, it's the downfall of civilization!
Respect71 wrote:
“Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized.”
These groups are losing power because they're shrinking in numbers, not because anyone is trying to harm them.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1159 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL... Sex orientation is a protected race?
No, it's a protected trait (in many states, not all).
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” If you’re willing to charge government to remove rights of Christians for disagreeing with you then your aren't an American and this is the wrong Country for you.
No one is removing the rights of Christians.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1160 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Then please explain Bisexuals and Transexuals.
This is America where ALL are free to be who we are.
How do bisexuals and transsexuals conflict with the idea that sexual orientation is innate?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1161 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
It’s not... Skin color is not sexual orientation.
It doesn't have to be. The action is the same: refusal of service. In both cases, the business owner refuses service to a customer because of one of the customer's innate traits.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s intellectually dishonest for you to even compare race to sex.
I didn't. I compared race to sexual orientation.
Respect71 wrote:
And if you truly did understand why he didn’t sell the wedding cake to persons who are not husband and wife, then you wouldn’t stand for government prosecution.
I do understand why he didn't sell the cake. And I'm still for prosecution. The baker broke the law. Period.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1163 Jan 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. Religious beliefs do not override anti-discrimination laws. If they did, then anti-discrimination laws couldn't even exist. People would be able to refuse to serve black people. People could fire an employee for being a Jew. People could kick a family out of their apartment because they're Irish.
The 1st Amendment does, in fact that’s why it says “Congress shall make no laws”...
Being gay is not being black, jewish, or Irish... And if a man believes a wedding cake should only be sold to a husband and wife then that is his right under the 1st Amendment.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1164 Jan 27, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a braying azz. If a pagan business owner or a jewish one or a buddhist one tossed some moron fundie couple out of a bakery then our lying, fundie scum wouldn't say that business owner was "doing nothing" to the couple.
When did jeeesus say you could be a lying cretin in His name, you ignorant trash?
I am speaking of the Americans Constitution and specifically the 1st Amendment of the bill of rights.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1165 Jan 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
How so? Allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't change anyone's sexual orientation.
<quoted text>
lol, is this a serious quote? How will it change how society is structured? We'll go from having straight married couples and gay couples who aren't married...to both sets of couples being married. Oh no, it's the downfall of civilization!
<quoted text>
These groups are losing power because they're shrinking in numbers, not because anyone is trying to harm them.
“How so?” Do you have children? What do they ask you when they see gay relations on tv?

“is this a serious quote? How will it change how society is structured?” Dead serious. Tell me your definition of marriage and that’s how it’s changed.

It’s not about loosing power but when a baker is “marginalized” for believing a wedding cake is for a husband and wife, that goes against American freedoms.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1166 Jan 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's a protected trait (in many states, not all).
<quoted text>
No one is removing the rights of Christians.
The baker faces jail and fines for literally doing nothing to a gay couple. He believes that the institution of marriage belongs to one-man and one-woman and the wedding cake is a symbol of that and now government is punishing him for his belief.

What rights were removed from the gay couple?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1167 Jan 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
How do bisexuals and transsexuals conflict with the idea that sexual orientation is innate?
You tell me? Can you or can you not explain? Was it you I was asking originally?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1168 Jan 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't have to be. The action is the same: refusal of service. In both cases, the business owner refuses service to a customer because of one of the customer's innate traits.
<quoted text>
I didn't. I compared race to sexual orientation.
<quoted text>
I do understand why he didn't sell the cake. And I'm still for prosecution. The baker broke the law. Period.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1169 Jan 27, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
What the gutter trash fundies can't think through is that religious affiliation is a choice.
Jaysus freaky or being a normal, non fundie Christian, is not a biological trait. Nor is veterna's status. Nor is, in many cases, disability.
Yet these are linked by a similar principle of being groups a business owner may not discriminate against. That they are choices is not relevant.
So it's not necessary to argue with feeble minded, sexually sick mullahs about the obvious pint that heterosexuality and other sexual orientations are biologically based.
It is necessary to make clear to hate mongering christianists that crying "jaysus" does not mean secular laws governing places of public accommodations suddenly go away. Otherwise members of other religions could discriminate against christianists.
Anyone with two brain cells can figure this out...unless they think the US is a christianist theocracy. Which they mistakenly, insanely do.
Whether religion is a choice or not doesn’t mean that the religious freedom goes to the wayside because of gay ‘fudies” like yourself.
America is NOT a theocracy, but we are a Constitutional Republic and you charging government to prosecute people you don’t agree with is wrong. My freedom is the same as yours... Same as the baker and if your don’t like it, don’t buy a wedding cake from him.
Warm Heart

Central City, KY

#1170 Jan 27, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a braying azz. If a pagan business owner or a jewish one or a buddhist one tossed some moron fundie couple out of a bakery then our lying, fundie scum wouldn't say that business owner was "doing nothing" to the couple.
When did jeeesus say you could be a lying cretin in His name, you ignorant trash?
Talk about trash, I bet your mother is so proud of you.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1171 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1st Amendment does, in fact that’s why it says “Congress shall make no laws”...
Are you under the impression that Constitutional rights are unlimited?

You have freedom of speech, but you cannot lie in court or yell fire in a theater.
You have freedom of assembly, but cannot hold a meeting in the middle of a highway.
You have freedom to arm yourself, but cannot own a nuclear weapon.

Similarly, freedom of religion does not allow you do to anything you want just because you have a religious reason for it. Some Mormons belief that black people are evil, with the curse of Ham. Yet, they may not refuse to serve a black customer.

Not liking gay people does not allow you to break anti-discrimination laws.
Respect71 wrote:
Being gay is not being black, jewish, or Irish...
It's similar. More similar to being black or Irish than being a member of a particular religion is.

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
Net Neutrality 7 hr who 2
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 17 hr lado 30,094
Mexicans (Mar '14) Wed nu gene 140
What are some of the best Gay Bars & Bathhouses... (Jan '09) Nov 21 obama 15
News Englewood police respond to explosion, find dea... Nov 19 Lado 2
last post wins! (Feb '11) Nov 19 Princess Hey 26,395
bt Nov 18 nu gene 8

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages