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
1,041 - 1,060 of 2,612 Comments Last updated 6 min ago

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1246
Jan 29, 2014
 
Wow respect, talk about redefining marriage by equating it to baking a cake!

Brilliantly ridiculous.

So if they asked for a wedding pie that would mean he'd have no problem right?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1247
Jan 29, 2014
 
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text> Your assumption that people who believe that the definition of marriage as between a man-woman couple means they hate gays. That’s very sad.
That wasn't what I was saying. You can feel ANY way about gays you'd like (including hating them). That feeling doesn't allow you to discriminate.
Respect71 wrote:
“It's PRECISELY discrimination.” Not even close.
You have a funny definition of discrimination. Is it discrimination if the baker refused to sell the cake to a Christian couple or a black couple? Yes or No?
Respect71 wrote:
Because the baker believes a wedding cake is for a husband and wife and doesn’t sell it to them does NOTHING to the gay couple.
And if a diner owner believes sandwiches are for white people and doesn't sell them to black people it does nothing to the black people???
Respect71 wrote:
When it’s a wedding cake the symbolizes a husband and wife relationship... It absolutely does.
Your argument is entirely arbitrary. If the baker believes wedding cakes symbolize a white + white relationship, can he deny selling them to black people?
Respect71 wrote:
But that’s not your goal, because you want this man in jail and fined.
I don't want him in jail. He should be fined for breaking the law.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1248
Jan 29, 2014
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Freedom of religion is about a wedding cake? Do you have ANY idea just how stupid that sounds?
Yes and Respect whines constantly about redefining marriage.

The only religion I know of that makes cake a part of the wedding ceremony is Buddhism.

So now Christians are redefining marriage to mean baking a cake?

LMAO!
I wonder how they explain that a cake is needed to validate a legal contract.

And if the cake sucks does that mean the marriage won't produce children?

If the cake is dry does that mean God isn't blessing the marriage?

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1249
Jan 29, 2014
 
Warm Heart wrote:
<quoted text> That's your opinion and that's fine.
Leviticus is often cited as justifying opposition to SSM.

This is from Leviticus. Do you obey this part of the Bible?

Leviticus 19:18
New International Version (NIV)
18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

Or do you decide on your own what parts of God's laws matter and which ones are OK to ignore?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1250
Jan 29, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“You proposed a hypothetical that doesn't make any sense.” Then you should clarify instead of dodging the question.
Clarify what? Your silly hypothetical? If another family were attempting to lecture my son on political issues, I'd tell them to stop, or no longer allow him to spend time with that family. That's highly inappropriate.
Respect71 wrote:
And we can say gay marriage has caused an effect too. You don’t have to accept the reason, but it’s still a fact.
You can SAY anything. It's not evidence unless you actually have a reason to tie the things together.
Respect71 wrote:
“How isn't it mild?” Explain how it is?
The change was small (12=>11) and a slightly lower growth rate is not a bad thing for a country.
Respect71 wrote:
But the baker is loosing his rights, so not it’s not so silly.
The baker hasn't lost any rights.
Respect71 wrote:
Apparently he would sell to husband and wife couples... Your comparison has no baring.
I'm not asking about this particular baker. I'm asking if YOU think a business should be able to refuse service to people based on their race or religion or gender or ethnicity.

You keep avoiding the question. I suspect it's because you're going to answer "No" and realize you're being wildly hypocritical.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1251
Jan 29, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Respect71 wrote:
“What assumption? People are free to hate gay people if they choose to.” Your assumption that people who believe that the definition of marriage as between a man-woman couple means they hate gays. That’s very sad.
“It's PRECISELY discrimination.” Not even close.
“Baker: I sell wedding cakes.
Straight couple: Can we buy one?
Baker: Yes.
Gay couple: Can we buy one?
Baker: No.” Because the baker believes a wedding cake is for a husband and wife and doesn’t sell it to them does NOTHING to the gay couple.
“There's nothing irrational about the argument. You can have any feelings you like about a customer and their race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc. But that doesn't allow you to discriminate against them.“ When it’s a wedding cake the symbolizes a husband and wife relationship... It absolutely does.
“No, but it makes you treat people better.”... But that’s not your goal, because you want this man in jail and fined.
Actually, it is utterly irrational, considering that Colorado has an anti-discrimination statue that includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

He broke the law, plain and simple. Providing the service would in no way infringe upon the bakers religious freedom or free speech.

"Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is
distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to
legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law (§ 24-34-601. C.R.S.); it
adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the
marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate
regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that
barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free
exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple
due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a
biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that
argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, supra."

"The ALJ, however, rejects Respondents’ argument that preparing a wedding
cake is necessarily a medium of expression amounting to protected “speech,” or that
compelling Respondents to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the
equivalent of forcing Respondents to adhere to “an ideological point of view.” There is
no doubt that decorating a wedding cake involves considerable skill and artistry.
However, the finished product does not necessarily qualify as “speech,” as would
saluting a flag, marching in a parade, or displaying a motto. United States v. O’Brien,
391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968)(“We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless
variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the
conduct intends thereby to express an idea.”)6 The undisputed evidence is that Phillips
categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding before
there was any discussion about what that cake would look like. Phillips was not asked
to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that
could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. After being
refused, Complainants immediately left the shop. For all Phillips knew at the time,
Complainants might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for
consumption at any wedding.7 Therefore, Respondents’ claim that they refused to
provide a cake because it would convey a message supporting same-sex marriage is
specious."
June Cleaver

Clever, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1252
Jan 29, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Fkin waaaa take the gay cake and stick it in your gay holes.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1256
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text> Then if they believe that they have no reason to refuse to make a cake for something that they insist doesn't celebrate marriage.
It's that simple.
You still have FAILED to explain why it's OK for someone to use religion to practice an activity that is illegal.
Using religion to discriminate is a crime.
You support criminal activities and so does the baker. If the baker can decide what laws to obey then why can't everyone else? It's a simple question and you avoid giving a rational answer.
“Then if they believe that they have no reason to refuse to make a cake for something that they insist doesn't celebrate marriage.” Gay’s?

It's that simple.

“You still have FAILED to explain why it's OK for someone to use religion to practice an activity that is illegal.” I did, but you choose to ignore it.

“Using religion to discriminate is a crime.” Not in this case... It’s a wedding cake for husband and wife couples.

“You support criminal activities and so does the baker. If the baker can decide what laws to obey then why can't everyone else?” Do you speed? Ever Fish with out a license?

The point is we all have individual rights and if you choose to allow government to remove the bakers rights, your rights aren't that far off.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1257
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DNF wrote:
Wow respect, talk about redefining marriage by equating it to baking a cake!
Brilliantly ridiculous.
So if they asked for a wedding pie that would mean he'd have no problem right?
Yes and wedding rings and wedding venues, because many believe weddings are for husband and wife.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1258
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't what I was saying. You can feel ANY way about gays you'd like (including hating them). That feeling doesn't allow you to discriminate.
<quoted text>
You have a funny definition of discrimination. Is it discrimination if the baker refused to sell the cake to a Christian couple or a black couple? Yes or No?
<quoted text>
And if a diner owner believes sandwiches are for white people and doesn't sell them to black people it does nothing to the black people???
<quoted text>
Your argument is entirely arbitrary. If the baker believes wedding cakes symbolize a white + white relationship, can he deny selling them to black people?
<quoted text>
I don't want him in jail. He should be fined for breaking the law.
“That wasn't what I was saying. You can feel ANY way about gays you'd like (including hating them). That feeling doesn't allow you to discriminate.” In this case where he believes a wedding cake is for a husband and wife, it does.

“You have a funny definition of discrimination.” The original definition before the left distorted it :dis·crim·i·na·tion noun \dis-&#716;kri-m&#601; -&#712;n&#257;-sh& #601;n\: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing
“Is it discrimination if the baker refused to sell the cake to a Christian couple or a black couple? Yes or No?”” Yes based on the traditional definition.

“And if a diner owner believes sandwiches are for white people and doesn't sell them to black people it does nothing to the black people???” Focus... We are discussing the idea and symbolism of a wedding cake fore a husband and wife vs. husband and... husband. To keep making race an issue when it’s not is racist.

“Your argument is entirely arbitrary. If the baker believes wedding cakes symbolize a white + white relationship, can he deny selling them to black people?” Focus... We are discussing the idea and symbolism of a wedding cake fore a husband and wife vs. husband and... husband. To keep making race an issue when it’s not is racist.

“I don't want him in jail. He should be fined for breaking the law.” Punished for what he believes.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1259
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Clarify what? Your silly hypothetical? If another family were attempting to lecture my son on political issues, I'd tell them to stop, or no longer allow him to spend time with that family. That's highly inappropriate.
<quoted text>
You can SAY anything. It's not evidence unless you actually have a reason to tie the things together.
<quoted text>
The change was small (12=>11) and a slightly lower growth rate is not a bad thing for a country.
<quoted text>
The baker hasn't lost any rights.
<quoted text>
I'm not asking about this particular baker. I'm asking if YOU think a business should be able to refuse service to people based on their race or religion or gender or ethnicity.
You keep avoiding the question. I suspect it's because you're going to answer "No" and realize you're being wildly hypocritical.
“Clarify what? Your silly hypothetical? If another family were attempting to lecture my son on political issues, I'd tell them to stop, or no longer allow him to spend time with that family. That's highly inappropriate.” As is the government jailing a baker for doing something he doesn’t believe in, yet we all still have that right. I want gays do be with who they love but redefining marriage to fit their relationship when for all of human history it has been between a man and woman, is inappropriate.

“You can SAY anything. It's not evidence unless you actually have a reason to tie the things together.” We shall see.

“The change was small (12=>11) and a slightly lower growth rate is not a bad thing for a country.” If you say so...

“The baker hasn't lost any rights.” Jailed and fined for what he believes. No, no rights at all.<sarcasm

“I'm not asking about this particular baker. I'm asking if YOU think a business should be able to refuse service to people based on their race or religion or gender or ethnicity.” If it has anything to do with marriage, weddings, or family values yes. Government forcing businesses to submit to a redefinition of marriage is unconstitutional.

“You keep avoiding the question. I suspect it's because you're going to answer "No" and realize you're being wildly hypocritical.” I directly answer you and in your ignorance deny my answers because your are bent on your sides agenda

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1260
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is utterly irrational, considering that Colorado has an anti-discrimination statue that includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
He broke the law, plain and simple. Providing the service would in no way infringe upon the bakers religious freedom or free speech.
"Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is
distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to
legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law (§ 24-34-601. C.R.S.); it
adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the
marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate
regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that
barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free
exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple
due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a
biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that
argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, supra."
"The ALJ, however, rejects Respondents’ argument that preparing a wedding
cake is necessarily a medium of expression amounting to protected “speech,” or that
compelling Respondents to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the
equivalent of forcing Respondents to adhere to “an ideological point of view.” There is
no doubt that decorating a wedding cake involves considerable skill and artistry.
However, the finished product does not necessarily qualify as “speech,” as would
saluting a flag, marching in a parade, or displaying a motto. United States v. O’Brien,
391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968)(“We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless
variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the
conduct intends thereby to express an idea.”)6 The undisputed evidence is that Phillips
categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding before
there was any discussion about what that cake would look like. Phillips was not asked
to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that
could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. After being
refused, Complainants immediately left the shop. For all Phillips knew at the time,
Complainants might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for
consumption at any wedding.7 Therefore, Respondents’ claim that they refused to
provide a cake because it would convey a message supporting same-sex marriage is
specious."
He’s protected under the First Amendment, whether “specious." or not. Because of that you nor government have a say... For you and government to use law and government to force others to believe as you is UN-Constitutional.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1261
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey you stupid, lying pos, "Christian" is a big category. "Insane, bigoted fundie" is a less large category.
I have no problem with Christians, so you can stop playing the victim card, christer.
By the way, by your idiotic argument regarding fundie business owners, a Pagan business owner could refuse to serve fundie customers on the basis or claimed religious beliefs.
But of course fundie mullahs don't believe in the logical implications of their own nutty arguments.
We all have liberty... If you’d like China forces their people to believe as their leaders.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1262
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Respect71 wrote:
In this case where he believes a wedding cake is for a husband and wife, it does.
You keep repeating yourself, but you have no support for your statement. Religious belief has never been a valid excuse for discrimination.
Respect71 wrote:
The original definition before the left distorted it
:dis·crim·i·na·tion noun \dis-&#716;kri-m&#601; -&#712;n&#257;-sh& #601;n\: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing
lol. Words can have more than one meaning. Did you know that? The meaning being used in this context is "to treat someone differently (not as well) based on them being in a certain group".
Respect71 wrote:
“Is it discrimination if the baker refused to sell the cake to a Christian couple or a black couple? Yes or No?”” Yes based on the traditional definition.
Then the same is true if he refuses to sell to a gay couple.
Respect71 wrote:
Focus... We are discussing the idea and symbolism of a wedding cake fore a husband and wife vs. husband and... husband. To keep making race an issue when it’s not is racist.
I'm not making race an issue. I'm making analogies to show you how your argument doesn't make any sense.
Respect71 wrote:
“Your argument is entirely arbitrary. If the baker believes wedding cakes symbolize a white + white relationship, can he deny selling them to black people?” Focus... We are discussing the idea and symbolism of a wedding cake fore a husband and wife vs. husband and... husband. To keep making race an issue when it’s not is racist.
You don't even seem to understand the idea of an analogy...

If a baker can say "I don't want to sell to a gay couple because I believe a wedding cake is only for straight couples", then the baker can also say "I don't want to sell to a black couple because I believe a wedding cake is only for white couples."
Respect71 wrote:
“I don't want him in jail. He should be fined for breaking the law.” Punished for what he believes.
Punished for his actions.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1263
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Respect71 wrote:
He’s protected under the First Amendment, whether “specious." or not. Because of that you nor government have a say... For you and government to use law and government to force others to believe as you is UN-Constitutional.
No, he's not. Face it LackofRespect71, you have no legal leg to stand upon. The court has already addressed and refuted your argument. Their ruling carries the weight of law. You opinion and $2.25 will get you a ride on the NYC Subway.

"Respondents argue that compelling them to prepare a cake for a same-sex wedding is equivalent to forcing them to “speak” in favor of same-sex weddings – something they are unwilling to do. Indeed, the right to free speech means that the government may not compel an individual to communicate by word or deed an unwanted message or expression. West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943)(compelling a student to pledge allegiance to the flag “invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our
Constitution to reserve from all official control”); Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 715 (1977)(compelling a motorist to display the state’s motto,“Live Free of Die,” on his license plate forces him “to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable.”) The ALJ, however, rejects Respondents’ argument that preparing a wedding
cake is necessarily a medium of expression amounting to protected “speech,” or that
compelling Respondents to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the
equivalent of forcing Respondents to adhere to “an ideological point of view.” There is
no doubt that decorating a wedding cake involves considerable skill and artistry. However, the finished product does not necessarily qualify as “speech,” as would saluting a flag, marching in a parade, or displaying a motto. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968)(“We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea.”)6 The undisputed evidence is that Phillips categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding before there was any discussion about what that cake would look like. Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that
could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. After being refused, Complainants immediately left the shop. For all Phillips knew at the time, Complainants might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding.7
Therefore, Respondents’ claim that they refused to provide a cake because it would convey a message supporting same-sex marriage is specious. The act of preparing a cake is simply not “speech” warranting First Amendment protection."
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1264
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Respect71 wrote:
As is the government jailing a baker for doing something he doesn’t believe in, yet we all still have that right.
The baker has not been jailed.
Respect71 wrote:
I want gays do be with who they love but redefining marriage to fit their relationship when for all of human history it has been between a man and woman, is inappropriate.
Why? Marriage has been redefined countless times. It originated as a method by which men owned women. It was often arranged by parents, with no choice allowed by the two people getting married. It didn't allow divorce. A man could have many wives. All of these things have been changed.

It's an absolute joke to pretend like marriage has always been the same thing since the beginning of time.
Respect71 wrote:
“I'm not asking about this particular baker. I'm asking if YOU think a business should be able to refuse service to people based on their race or religion or gender or ethnicity.” If it has anything to do with marriage, weddings, or family values yes.
Absolutely anything could fall under "family values", so you are saying that businesses can discriminate against anyone.
Respect71 wrote:
Government forcing businesses to submit to a redefinition of marriage is unconstitutional.
How so? What part of the Constitution does it violate?
Respect71 wrote:
I directly answer you and in your ignorance deny my answers because your are bent on your sides agenda
This was the first post that you answered the question by confirming you are okay with any form of discrimination.

So if businesses start kicking Christians, or white people, out of their stores, I know you won't have a problem with it.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1265
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
For you and government to use law and government to force others to believe as you is UN-Constitutional.
You're a hypocrite. Not allowing gay people to marry is using the law to force others to believe as you do.

You want to restrict their freedom to get married because of *your belief*.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1266
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Then if they believe that they have no reason to refuse to make a cake for something that they insist doesn't celebrate marriage.” Gay’s?
It's that simple.
“You still have FAILED to explain why it's OK for someone to use religion to practice an activity that is illegal.” I did, but you choose to ignore it.
“Using religion to discriminate is a crime.” Not in this case... It’s a wedding cake for husband and wife couples.
“You support criminal activities and so does the baker. If the baker can decide what laws to obey then why can't everyone else?” Do you speed? Ever Fish with out a license?
The point is we all have individual rights and if you choose to allow government to remove the bakers rights, your rights aren't that far off.
Trans Woman Dares Bible-Quoting Councilman to Stone Her to Death
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/...

A City Council member in Shreveport, La., has abandoned his effort to repeal an LGBT-inclusive antidiscrimination ordinance, following outcry from the public, including a transgender woman who dared him to stone her to death...."Leviticus 20:13 states,'If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they shall surely put him to death,'" Raintree began. "I brought the first stone, Mr. Webb, in case that your Bible talk isn't just a smoke screen for personal prejudices."
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1268
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Then if they believe that they have no reason to refuse to make a cake for something that they insist doesn't celebrate marriage.” Gay’s?
It's that simple.
“You still have FAILED to explain why it's OK for someone to use religion to practice an activity that is illegal.” I did, but you choose to ignore it.
“Using religion to discriminate is a crime.” Not in this case... It’s a wedding cake for husband and wife couples.
“You support criminal activities and so does the baker. If the baker can decide what laws to obey then why can't everyone else?” Do you speed? Ever Fish with out a license?
The point is we all have individual rights and if you choose to allow government to remove the bakers rights, your rights aren't that far off.
Um hellooooooooooooo..... the government didn't remove the baker's rights. No one has a right to ignore the law.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1269
Jan 30, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
He’s protected under the First Amendment,
You are WRONG. But don't believe us. Ask SCOTUS.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••

Flash Flood Watch for Denver County was issued at July 30 at 6:35AM MDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••