Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 21500 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 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1292 Feb 6, 2014
Trolli wrote:
<quoted text>
Except for the baker, of course.
The specific topic of that post was allowing gay people to marry. The baker loses no freedom just because gay people can marry.

If you are referring to anti-discrimination laws limiting his freedom to discriminate, that's another thing. That is a loss of freedom, but a necessary one for a healthy society, just like laws that prevent his "freedom to pollute" or "freedom to not wash his hands when baking" or "freedom to have rats in his bakery".

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1293 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“You keep repeating yourself, but you have no support for your statement. Religious belief has never been a valid excuse for discrimination.”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” 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.
“lol. Words can have more than one meaning. Did you know that?” I do, and the left has distorted many meanings,“RACISM”=”you hate the president because you disagree with him.”,“DISCRIMINATION”=“you hate people because you disagree with them.” and by RE-DEFINING these word causes malice and confusion.
“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.”
“Then the same is true if he refuses to sell to a gay couple.” Are you basing that statement on the traditional definition of marriage?
“I'm not making race an issue. I'm making analogies to show you how your argument doesn't make any sense.” 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.
“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." “ He can but didn’t so your analogy is null.
“Punished for his actions.” Because of his belief. Shall we start punishing priests for their actions of not marrying gays?
And you keep failing to explain why all you religious freedom riders are so worried about wedding cakes and flowers, yet you have no problem passing laws that jail ministers for practicing their faith.

Since 1997 a minister in Indiana can be fined $1000 and jailed for 3 months simply for blessing a RELIGIOUS SSM.

Instead you keep arguing about how race and wedding cakes do or don't add up to the same thing!

You are supporting religious discrimination and supporting laws that give people the right to use religion as a reason to practice discrimination.

If you allow a business to use religion as justification to discriminate against gays and lesbians, who is next on the list? And why can't other groups then piggyback off of this? Your "religious freedom" crusade is on a very slippery slope. Makes me wonder if God is trying to tell you something with all these record setting snowstorms!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1294 Feb 6, 2014
to use religion as a reason to practice discrimination is by definition religious discrimination.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1295 Feb 6, 2014
Fundies R Mental wrote:
<quoted text>Hey cretin, religious beliefs don't trump secular law. This isn't a theocracy.

People can't marry multiple partners and peyote ceremonies are not legal. Muslims cannot toss ignorant xstain fundies out of businesses due to "religious" beliefs.

Everyone knows this. It's just the jaysus freeeks think they have more rights than everyone else who is religious or agnostic. These fundies are very sick, and completely anti rational in any context you can mention.
So you think not selling a wedding cake is a theocracy?

I think if you keep bashing like you do all of America (especially Christians) will be on your side in no time.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1296 Feb 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

If you don't like that then maybe this is the wrong Country for you.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1297 Feb 6, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Ridiculous. There is no "freedom to oppress".
If it makes you feel so good to re-define marriage, make the government endorse your relationship, then force government to punish and marginalized those who don't believe or agree with you then by all means...

The fact remains, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1298 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>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.
"RespondentsÂ’ refusal to provide a cake for ComplainantsÂ’ 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 stateÂ’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, RespondentsÂ’ 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 canÂ’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.
So what do you say to the BLARING difference between a same-sex couple and man-woman couple?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1299 Feb 6, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And you keep failing to explain why all you religious freedom riders are so worried about wedding cakes and flowers, yet you have no problem passing laws that jail ministers for practicing their faith.

Since 1997 a minister in Indiana can be fined $1000 and jailed for 3 months simply for blessing a RELIGIOUS SSM.

Instead you keep arguing about how race and wedding cakes do or don't add up to the same thing!

You are supporting religious discrimination and supporting laws that give people the right to use religion as a reason to practice discrimination.

If you allow a business to use religion as justification to discriminate against gays and lesbians, who is next on the list? And why can't other groups then piggyback off of this? Your "religious freedom" crusade is on a very slippery slope. Makes me wonder if God is trying to tell you something with all these record setting snowstorms!
If you are unwilling to be intellectually honest then I can't help you. You have your bent: to redefine marriage, and force others to believe that it's normal and if they don't punish them...

Mine is to allow freedom to all Americans even if I disagree with them.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1300 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
If you don't like that then maybe this is the wrong Country for you.
The First Amendment doesn't let you do anything you want just because your religious beliefs were your rationalization for it.

If you don't like that, maybe this is the wrong country for you.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1301 Feb 6, 2014
DNF wrote:
to use religion as a reason to practice discrimination is by definition religious discrimination.
... Sad. But your opinion and I don't wish you prosecuted.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1302 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think not selling a wedding cake is a theocracy?
I think if you keep bashing like you do all of America (especially Christians) will be on your side in no time.
LMAO

You are so clueless you can't even tell your ship is sinking.

Look at the number of Christians and their Churches who have left behind your anti-gay campaign in just the last 10 years.

Frankly this whole fundamentalist "just you wait and see how much trouble this will cause" litany of doom and gloom is getting tedious.

Using religion to justify discrimination is by definition practicing religious discrimination. That's why the word 'creed' is often included in these laws.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1303 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are unwilling to be intellectually honest then I can't help you. You have your bent: to redefine marriage, and force others to believe that it's normal and if they don't punish them...
Mine is to allow freedom to all Americans even if I disagree with them.
WRONG. There is no attempt on my part to "redefine" marriage.

To me a marriage is a marriage. It makes no difference to me if the two people are man and woman, man and man or woman and woman.

And I am not doing anything to infringe on anyone's right to disagree with me. You said yourself, "Mine is to allow freedom to all Americans even if I disagree with them".

Yet you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest for pointing out that in reality, there is a huge push to give special exemptions to christian businesses while at the same time the religious right and yourself do NOTHING about laws that can put ministers, rabbis, mullahs and priests behind bars.

If you insist that a person's "creed" allows them to be exempt from punishment for committing crimes, then all laws become useless.

Was this baker forced to bake the cake and be part of the ceremony?

NOPE

Was he convicted of trying to use Jesus to justify breaking the laws his own community decided on?

YES

Has he been saying he should not be punished for breaking laws that govern ALL businesses that produce food because HIS interpretation of the Bible GIVES HIM SPECIAL RIGHTS?

ABSOLUTELY

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1304 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
... Sad. But your opinion and I don't wish you prosecuted.
Using religion as a basis to discriminate is religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce;

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1305 Feb 6, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO
You are so clueless you can't even tell your ship is sinking.
Look at the number of Christians and their Churches who have left behind your anti-gay campaign in just the last 10 years.
Frankly this whole fundamentalist "just you wait and see how much trouble this will cause" litany of doom and gloom is getting tedious.
Using religion to justify discrimination is by definition practicing religious discrimination. That's why the word 'creed' is often included in these laws.
If you mean individual freedoms are sinking because of political correctness, then that is obvious.

“Look at the number of Christians and their Churches who have left behind your anti-gay campaign in just the last 10 years.” You mean the Christians who are kind and compassionate towards gays? That’s been going on far longer than just 10 years. That doesn’t mean they don’t still have the right to believe family is a husband and wife, and still support gays in loving their partners.

So why do you discriminate against the one who believes a wedding cake is for a husband and wife? Do you believe that’s “anti-gay”? Do you believe prosecuting him will make him change his mind and accept gays as being married?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1306 Feb 6, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>WRONG. There is no attempt on my part to "redefine" marriage.
To me a marriage is a marriage. It makes no difference to me if the two people are man and woman, man and man or woman and woman.
And I am not doing anything to infringe on anyone's right to disagree with me. You said yourself, "Mine is to allow freedom to all Americans even if I disagree with them".
Yet you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest for pointing out that in reality, there is a huge push to give special exemptions to christian businesses while at the same time the religious right and yourself do NOTHING about laws that can put ministers, rabbis, mullahs and priests behind bars.
If you insist that a person's "creed" allows them to be exempt from punishment for committing crimes, then all laws become useless.
Was this baker forced to bake the cake and be part of the ceremony?
NOPE
Was he convicted of trying to use Jesus to justify breaking the laws his own community decided on?
YES
Has he been saying he should not be punished for breaking laws that govern ALL businesses that produce food because HIS interpretation of the Bible GIVES HIM SPECIAL RIGHTS?
ABSOLUTELY
“WRONG. There is no attempt on my part to "redefine" marriage.” Never in all of human history has marriage included same-sex.

“To me a marriage is a marriage. It makes no difference to me if the two people are man and woman, man and man or woman and woman.” So who two people and what’s next... Father-son? Mother-daughter? Uncle-nephew?

The point is you are re-defining marriage to give your “special rights” instead of taking on your own definition of the relationship.

The baker has no “special rights” but he absolutely has the right and opinion to serving a wedding cake to a husband and wife couple.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1307 Feb 6, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Using religion as a basis to discriminate is religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1308 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you mean individual freedoms are sinking because of political correctness, then that is obvious.
“Look at the number of Christians and their Churches who have left behind your anti-gay campaign in just the last 10 years.” You mean the Christians who are kind and compassionate towards gays? That’s been going on far longer than just 10 years. That doesn’t mean they don’t still have the right to believe family is a husband and wife, and still support gays in loving their partners.
And I have never said otherwise so what's your point?
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>So why do you discriminate against the one who believes a wedding cake is for a husband and wife?
I don't and neither does the law. The solution for them to insure they don't violate any other strange rules God gave them about cakes, they should simply stop doing wedding cakes.
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you believe that’s “anti-gay”?
Yes because using religion to justify it makes it anti gay and religious discrimination.
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text> Do you believe prosecuting him will make him change his mind and accept gays as being married?
Of course I don't think it will change his mind anymore than such laws changed the ideas of the die hard racists of the 60's. The KKK is still alive and well and has spawned many white supremacist groups.

The thing is Dan, it doesn't matter what I think or you think. It's for the State to decide, just as it is for the State to decide if the death penalty is a deterrent for other crimes.

And the State has decided that what he did is similar to what people tried to do to blacks after desegregation.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1309 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
And this is a STATE Law so therefore a States' Rights issue just like the death penalty.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1311 Feb 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Baking a cake isn't part of ANYBODY'S religious practice, you flaming idiot.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1312 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Thank you.

How did Americans get SO stupid?

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) 2 hr Telling it like i... 18,126
Review: Tree Land Christmas Trees (Dec '11) 7 hr PeteHasBigTits 11
last post wins! (Feb '11) 8 hr Maverick 808 25,102
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 16 hr WeTheSheeple 4,363
Effects from the recent decline in oil prices Fri Sori 11
Open Borders Have Crushed Our Immigration Court... Fri mjjcpa 2
News Denver youth-facility staffer charged with abuse (Jul '09) Fri LePoop 168
More from around the web

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]