Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 38646 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

#1271 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
What’s funny is you seem to think it’s done and over with.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1272 Feb 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The baker has not been jailed.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Absolutely anything could fall under "family values", so you are saying that businesses can discriminate against anyone.
<quoted text>
How so? What part of the Constitution does it violate?
<quoted text>
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.
“The baker has not been jailed.” Not yet.

“Why? Marriage has been redefined countless times.” Never to include same-sex.

“It's an absolute joke to pretend like marriage has always been the same thing since the beginning of time.” Since the beginning of time it has ALWAYS been opposite-sex.

“Absolutely anything could fall under "family values", so you are saying that businesses can discriminate against anyone.” Let’s not play the word twist games… You believe gays should be included in the definition of marriage and there are others who don’t… You can’t take away one groups way to believe without removing the other groups way to believe. That’s NOT America.

“How so? What part of the Constitution does it violate?”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

“This was the first post that you answered the question by confirming you are okay with any form of discrimination.” No. Your goal to demonize people who have religious beliefs that don’t line up with what you believe is crass. It is absolutely appropriate for a baker, who believe in man-woman marriage to refuse a gay couple a wedding cake. That is not me being “okay with any form of discrimination.” That is me seeing both sides and acknowledging that we ALL have rights and freedoms.

“So if businesses start kicking Christians, or white people, out of their stores, I know you won't have a problem with it.” Yes I would. Would you?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1273 Feb 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
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*.
Marriage has always been between men-women and to redefine marriage to include same-sex goes against many American’s beliefs, yet they acknowledge they want gays to be together… It’s you who is forcing your belief on others, otherwise why would the word marriage have to re-defined?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1274 Feb 6, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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."
So, therefore what? This has to do with the baker how?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1275 Feb 6, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Um hellooooooooooooo..... the government didn't remove the baker's rights. No one has a right to ignore the law.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1276 Feb 6, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You are WRONG. But don't believe us. Ask SCOTUS.
Did they take this case? Are we there yet… We shall see.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1277 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
What’s funny is you seem to think it’s done and over with.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
It is over. As I have said before the baker has no legal leg to stand upon, because his rights have in no way been violated.

This will drag only as long as the baker can continue to pay the defense attorneys. He has no prayer of winning upon appeal, because he has no case.

Simply put, baking a cake for someone of differing beliefs does not violate free exercise. Please, by all means, feel free to tell me how it does. Be specific.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1278 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It is over. As I have said before the baker has no legal leg to stand upon, because his rights have in no way been violated.
This will drag only as long as the baker can continue to pay the defense attorneys. He has no prayer of winning upon appeal, because he has no case.
Simply put, baking a cake for someone of differing beliefs does not violate free exercise. Please, by all means, feel free to tell me how it does. Be specific.
It’s nowhere close to over.
I have been specific. A wedding cake, to many, symbolizes, the marriage of husband and wife. In a gay relationship, who is the husband and who is the wife? Not selling a wedding cake because of the specific belief isn’t cause for the law to force your belief that the definition is invalid because you want it to be.
So next is the Christian jeweler who will only sell wedding bands to husbands and wives, or a pastor that will be forced to marry a gay couple because you feel your belief is bigger and better than the rest of America. Is that what you want?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1279 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
It’s nowhere close to over.
I have been specific. A wedding cake, to many, symbolizes, the marriage of husband and wife. In a gay relationship, who is the husband and who is the wife? Not selling a wedding cake because of the specific belief isn’t cause for the law to force your belief that the definition is invalid because you want it to be.
So next is the Christian jeweler who will only sell wedding bands to husbands and wives, or a pastor that will be forced to marry a gay couple because you feel your belief is bigger and better than the rest of America. Is that what you want?
It was over before it started. The Anti-discrimination law is constitutional, and the baker's rights were in no way violated.

Your examples are absurd. Baking a cake it not protected speech, nor does providing a service for someone with differing views in any way impact upon one's free speech or religious freedom. The court detailed these points quite eloquently.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...

The Christian jeweler would similarly be afoul of the law.

A pastor is protected by the 1st Amendment, and could not be compelled to perform a ceremony that went against their religious views. Do you see the difference, dullard? The Pastor is actually providing a religious service, ergo free exercise is at the root of the question. Bakers and jewelers sell a physical good or service that is not intrinsically linked to religion.

This has nothing to do with forcing one's views on someone else. It has to do with equal protection of the law. I don't care what you do at church, I don't care what you think of my relationship, I do care about equality under the law.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1280 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
An American can believe, by faith or otherwise, that marriage is between, one-man and one-woman, just as you, apparently, believe different. If you’re willing to remove one’s right, then you can’t have your right.
Why are you unable to distinguish beliefs from actions?
Respect71 wrote:
“DISCRIMINATION”=“you hate people because you disagree with them.”
False. I have only described discrimination in terms of ACTIONS, not disagreement.
Respect71 wrote:
“The meaning being used in this context is "to treat someone differently (not as well) based on them being in a certain group".=“throw him in jail and fine him.”
"Refuses to serve people" is not a legitimate group.
Respect71 wrote:
Then you need to make your analogies based on opposite sex and same sex couples because the color of the skin has ZERO baring on the definition of marriage or the sale of a wedding cake.
The point of analogies is that they're something different, but relate-able to the original issue.

And color of the skin absolutely DOES have baring on the definition of marriage if the baker believes interracial couples shouldn't marry.
Respect71 wrote:
He can but didn’t so your analogy is null.
So you're either (a) against all discrimination laws or (b) believe people can break any law they want as long as they have a religious excuse.

Which is it?
Respect71 wrote:
“Punished for his actions.” Because of his belief. Shall we start punishing priests for their actions of not marrying gays?
Churches are private clubs, not public businesses.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1281 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“The baker has not been jailed.” Not yet.
What part of the anti-discrimination statute makes it a crime resulting in jail time?
Respect71 wrote:
“Why? Marriage has been redefined countless times.” Never to include same-sex.
lol, what does it matter? The point is that it can be redefined.
Respect71 wrote:
“How so? What part of the Constitution does it violate?”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Free exercise of religion does not include business discrimination.
Respect71 wrote:
It is absolutely appropriate for a baker, who believe in man-woman marriage to refuse a gay couple a wedding cake. That is not me being “okay with any form of discrimination.” That is me seeing both sides and acknowledging that we ALL have rights and freedoms.
Name me ONE form of discrimination a baker could engage in that you are not okay with.
Respect71 wrote:
“So if businesses start kicking Christians, or white people, out of their stores, I know you won't have a problem with it.” Yes I would. Would you?
So you're a hypocrite. You think a baker can refuse to serve a gay couple because of the baker's personal beliefs, but you don't think a baker can refuse to serve a Christian couple or white couple because of the baker's personal beliefs.

You've revealed that you want the law to only protect beliefs YOU agree with.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1282 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>It’s you who is forcing your belief on others, otherwise why would the word marriage have to re-defined?
Your belief involves limiting freedom (gays can't marry). Mine doesn't limit anyone's freedom.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1283 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It was over before it started. The Anti-discrimination law is constitutional, and the baker's rights were in no way violated.
Your examples are absurd. Baking a cake it not protected speech, nor does providing a service for someone with differing views in any way impact upon one's free speech or religious freedom. The court detailed these points quite eloquently.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
The Christian jeweler would similarly be afoul of the law.
A pastor is protected by the 1st Amendment, and could not be compelled to perform a ceremony that went against their religious views. Do you see the difference, dullard? The Pastor is actually providing a religious service, ergo free exercise is at the root of the question. Bakers and jewelers sell a physical good or service that is not intrinsically linked to religion.
This has nothing to do with forcing one's views on someone else. It has to do with equal protection of the law. I don't care what you do at church, I don't care what you think of my relationship, I do care about equality under the law.
“A pastor is protected by the 1st Amendment, and could not be compelled to perform a ceremony that went against their religious views. Do you see the difference, dullard?” Even if you called me a more vulgar name, there is no difference from a pastor and a person of faith.
“The Pastor is actually providing a religious service, ergo free exercise is at the root of the question. Bakers and jewelers sell a physical good or service that is not intrinsically linked to religion.” They are when they are wedding cakes and wedding bands based on their belief of marriage as being between a husband and wife.

“This has nothing to do with forcing one's views on someone else. It has to do with equal protection of the law. I don't care what you do at church, I don't care what you think of my relationship, I do care about equality under the law.” Then you should be concerned about what the law is doing to this baker based on his belief. You can’t remove his rights and expect your rights to stay intact.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1284 Feb 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of the anti-discrimination statute makes it a crime resulting in jail time?
<quoted text>
lol, what does it matter? The point is that it can be redefined.
<quoted text>
Free exercise of religion does not include business discrimination.
<quoted text>
Name me ONE form of discrimination a baker could engage in that you are not okay with.
<quoted text>
So you're a hypocrite. You think a baker can refuse to serve a gay couple because of the baker's personal beliefs, but you don't think a baker can refuse to serve a Christian couple or white couple because of the baker's personal beliefs.
You've revealed that you want the law to only protect beliefs YOU agree with.
“Why are you unable to distinguish beliefs from actions?” Beliefs take action… Why do you not understand that?

“False. I have only described discrimination in terms of ACTIONS, not disagreement.” Yet because you disagree you are for punishing a man for acting upon his beliefs.

“"Refuses to serve people" is not a legitimate group.” Marginalizing people now?

“The point of analogies is that they're something different, but relate-able to the original issue.

And color of the skin absolutely DOES have baring on the definition of marriage if the baker believes interracial couples shouldn't marry.” The analogy because it addressing nothing about marriage, same-sex, or the traditions that are held… Changing it to skin color is distracting.

“So you're either (a) against all discrimination laws or (b) believe people can break any law they want as long as they have a religious excuse.

Which is it?” I am for the laws, however, because of the nature of marriage in this case the 1st Amendment applies.

“Churches are private clubs, not public businesses.” So is that a yes or no?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1285 Feb 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your belief involves limiting freedom (gays can't marry). Mine doesn't limit anyone's freedom.
Because of the fact you have to re-define the word marriage to fit the relationship you have removes the freedom of Americans to keep and protect marriage as a husband and wife. Colorado law provides gays with the government benefits while allowing marriage to be between husband and wife. That’s freedom.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1287 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Beliefs take action… Why do you not understand that?
Beliefs are entirely separate from actions. A racist business owner can believe black people are evil. That's different than serving them versus not serving them.
Respect71 wrote:

“False. I have only described discrimination in terms of ACTIONS, not disagreement.” Yet because you disagree you are for punishing a man for acting upon his beliefs.
Hey, you got it right. He is being punished for actions. The reasons for his actions really aren't important here.

Can you name any other crime where the defendant can say "well my religious beliefs told me to" and that counts as a legit defense?
Respect71 wrote:

“"Refuses to serve people" is not a legitimate group.” Marginalizing people now?
No. Do you believe "discriminating business owner" is a protected class? Or should be?
Respect71 wrote:

Changing it to skin color is distracting.
In other words, you don't understand it.
Respect71 wrote:

“So you're either (a) against all discrimination laws or (b) believe people can break any law they want as long as they have a religious excuse.
Which is it?” I am for the laws, however, because of the nature of marriage in this case the 1st Amendment applies.
Then it applies in every case. What if my religion says the nature of marriage is that it's only for white people? Then I'm free to not sell a wedding cake to black people?
Respect71 wrote:

“Churches are private clubs, not public businesses.” So is that a yes or no?
It's a no. Churches have never be required to marry ANY couple they don't want to.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1288 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because of the fact you have to re-define the word marriage to fit the relationship you have removes the freedom of Americans to keep and protect marriage as a husband and wife.
Ridiculous. There is no "freedom to oppress".

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1289 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Even if you called me a more vulgar name, there is no difference from a pastor and a person of faith.
Actually, there is a glaring difference. Namely that a pastor's business is running a church, which represents a certain religion. A business owner is running a public business. The difference is huge.
If one thinks there is no difference between a church and a business, then they certainly have earned any number of insults to their intelligence
Respect71 wrote:
They are when they are wedding cakes and wedding bands based on their belief of marriage as being between a husband and wife.
Here's the deal, kiddo. If they live in a jurisdiction that has an anti-discrimination statutes that includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and they deny service on that basis, they have broken the law.
Providing the service in no way violates their free exercise of religion, nor does it violate their 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."

"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...
Respect71 wrote:
Then you should be concerned about what the law is doing to this baker based on his belief. You can’t remove his rights and expect your rights to stay intact.
The law is requiring the baker not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Simply put, they broke the law. Providing the service, as the court has pointed out, in no way violates the religious freedom or free speech of the baker. Such claims are ludicrous.

They are still free to think homosexuality, or specifically gay marriage are wrong or amoral, but they have no right to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. To do so, in effect, projects their religious moral views onto the would be client in violation of their free exercise.

The case is a loser for your side, and they would do well to simply walk away. The only winner in the appeals process will be the defense attorneys who will continue to collect fees as they lose.

“Low Information Outreach”

Level 3

Since: Jun 12

Under the Castle Rock

#1290 Feb 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Mine doesn't limit anyone's freedom.
Except for the baker, of course.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1291 Feb 6, 2014
Trolli wrote:
Except for the baker, of course.
Funny, the count neatly dispatched each of their arguments that their rights had been violated. Simply making a claim doesn't make it true.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...

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
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 3 hr Respect71 24,098
Democrats created and own racist Confederate flag 10 hr Terressa 3
last post wins! (Feb '11) 11 hr -Prince- 26,043
Mexicans (Mar '14) 23 hr Les 76
Best Bud Prices Wed truth 2
Democrat party of KKK and BLM Wed President Lincoln 1
Latino vote is Taco Bowl Outreach for Dems Wed First Man BJClinton 1

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages