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
1,121 - 1,140 of 3,016 Comments Last updated 33 min ago

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1335 Feb 7, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>We've been over this with you before, you really should have taken better notes. No matter how it is written, it is not an absolute right. It has limits. If the state can prove that it serving a compelling interest by doing so, free exercise can be restricted or even prohibited. It is why the murderers of abortion providers have ended up in prison for their exercising their deeply held religious beliefs. Protecting the public from discriminatory acts, because no one deserves to be ambushed by bigots, a compelling state interest, whether you agree or not. He has no such right to refuse service, whether God agrees with him or not. You can quote the phrase all you want, but you've offered no rational reason why the God given right to be a bigot is one which should be constitutionally guaranteed. Why should he have the right to shove his beliefs down their throat like that, no matter how polite he was in doing so? They were asking for his service as a cake decorator, not his blessings.
It's a wedding cake meant for a husband and wife... "Our Constitution is about our freedom to believe.“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1336 Feb 7, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>So I guess that means Kosher Delis will be required by law to serve Christmas Hams, right?
Like I said maybe all this snow is God's way of telling you about the slippery slope you're embracing.
Freedom (for ALL Americans) is never a slippery slope.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1337 Feb 7, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
It's a wedding cake meant for a husband and wife... "Our Constitution is about our freedom to believe"
And he remains free to believe such nonsense, however having such silly beliefs does not give him the right to refuse his services as a provider of wedding cakes. It is why he was found guilty, it is why these laws have been repeatedly upheld.
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
You keep repeating this as if it were an absolute right to exercise ones religious beliefs in any way, shape or form, any time, any place. It isn't. It's been limited in ways acceptable to the Constitution from the get go. You have yet to offer any rational argument as to why laws prohibiting discrimination by all business owners are an unconstitutional burden on the rights of believers among them. All bigots have a right to their beliefs, their right to exercise those beliefs, rationally limited. Blaming God for their bigotry shouldn't make anyone special.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1338 Feb 7, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and The Colorado State Constitution Article II, Section 4.
You can quote the 1st Amendment all you want. It still does not change the fact that you want the government to give certain religious groups special rights to use religion as a basis for discrimination.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1339 Feb 7, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
So what do you say to the BLARING difference between a same-sex couple and man-woman couple?
I say it has no bearing upon the constitutional mandate that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

You don't seem mentally up to the task of providing a compelling governmental interest served by restricting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1340 Feb 10, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>And he remains free to believe such nonsense, however having such silly beliefs does not give him the right to refuse his services as a provider of wedding cakes. It is why he was found guilty, it is why these laws have been repeatedly upheld.<quoted text>You keep repeating this as if it were an absolute right to exercise ones religious beliefs in any way, shape or form, any time, any place. It isn't. It's been limited in ways acceptable to the Constitution from the get go. You have yet to offer any rational argument as to why laws prohibiting discrimination by all business owners are an unconstitutional burden on the rights of believers among them. All bigots have a right to their beliefs, their right to exercise those beliefs, rationally limited. Blaming God for their bigotry shouldn't make anyone special.
You can’t remove the rights of others and expect your rights to remain intact.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1341 Feb 10, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You can quote the 1st Amendment all you want. It still does not change the fact that you want the government to give certain religious groups special rights to use religion as a basis for discrimination.
You say as you support government fining and jailing a man for his religious beliefs. Freedom doesn’t apply to you alone.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1342 Feb 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I say it has no bearing upon the constitutional mandate that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
You don't seem mentally up to the task of providing a compelling governmental interest served by restricting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional.
“I say it has no bearing upon the constitutional mandate that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” With the exemption the relationships aren’t equal.

“You don't seem mentally up to the task of providing a compelling governmental interest served by restricting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional.” I have (which you chose to ignore), so why do you provide a “a compelling governmental interest served by“ redefining marriage to include gay couples, and be sure to include the benefits for ALL Americans, especially the ones who believe a marriage is defined as a husband and wife?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1343 Feb 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“I say it has no bearing upon the constitutional mandate that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” With the exemption the relationships aren’t equal.
Do you notice how you undermine your own argument by applying quotations? Read the 14th Amendment, the exemption you would like to be applicable simply does not exist.
Respect71 wrote:
“You don't seem mentally up to the task of providing a compelling governmental interest served by restricting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional.” I have (which you chose to ignore), so why do you provide a “a compelling governmental interest served by“ redefining marriage to include gay couples, and be sure to include the benefits for ALL Americans, especially the ones who believe a marriage is defined as a husband and wife?
No, you have posted the same mindless rationalizations made by anyone who has no valid argument that marriage exists in every state between a man and a woman. You have not succeeded in articulating any state interest served by such a restriction, which expressly negates the ability for same sex couples to legally marry.

If you believe marriage is between a husband and wife, then don't marry someone of the same sex. If someone else does not believe that, why should they have to abide by your religious moral views?

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1344 Feb 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You can’t remove the rights of others and expect your rights to remain intact.
I realize that this was the best you were going to be able top come up with, but it is a completely meaningless statement. You are asserting a right that neither the US nor state Constitution gives the baker, no matter how many times you repeat the free exercise clause.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1345 Feb 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You say as you support government fining and jailing a man for his religious beliefs. Freedom doesn’t apply to you alone.
You know, it might help your argument if you would quit lying as to what he is actually facing here. His only "penalty" has been an order to obey the law and to post notice in his place of public accommodation that he will obey the law in the future.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1346 Feb 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you notice how you undermine your own argument by applying quotations? Read the 14th Amendment, the exemption you would like to be applicable simply does not exist.
<quoted text>
No, you have posted the same mindless rationalizations made by anyone who has no valid argument that marriage exists in every state between a man and a woman. You have not succeeded in articulating any state interest served by such a restriction, which expressly negates the ability for same sex couples to legally marry.
If you believe marriage is between a husband and wife, then don't marry someone of the same sex. If someone else does not believe that, why should they have to abide by your religious moral views?
So in other words you can’t provide ““a compelling governmental interest served by“ redefining marriage to include gay couples...

The 14th Amendment applies the the baker as well.

To answer your question…  It’s interesting you think I am standing up for religious and moral views, when I am only pointing out the BLARING difference between a same-sex couple and man-woman couples, and the fact that redefining marriage creates more confusion and removes freedom those who believe in traditional marriage, religious or otherwise. The biggest lie in human history is “marriage equality”. As our government changes and adjusts laws, same-sex couples, regardless, will always have to preface their union with “gay” or “same-sex”.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1347 Feb 10, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I realize that this was the best you were going to be able top come up with, but it is a completely meaningless statement. You are asserting a right that neither the US nor state Constitution gives the baker, no matter how many times you repeat the free exercise clause.
It does but you ignore it because you want our government to force acceptance.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1348 Feb 10, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You know, it might help your argument if you would quit lying as to what he is actually facing here. His only "penalty" has been an order to obey the law and to post notice in his place of public accommodation that he will obey the law in the future.
Doesn’t change the 1st Amendment.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1349 Feb 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
It does but you ignore it because you want our government to force acceptance.
We've been down this road before, you should have taken better notes. I've demonstrated how it is a reasonable restriction of the business owner's right to refuse service and how preventing such acts of discrimination serves a compelling interest, thus meeting the requirement to limit practicing what one preaches in the public square. You have offered no argument to the contrary. Sorry, but that is the reality.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1350 Feb 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
So in other words you can’t provide ““a compelling governmental interest served by“ redefining marriage to include gay couples...
Before you parrot legal terms, you would be wise to understand their meaning and applicability.
"Strict Scrutiny
A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.
The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution."

You see, a compelling state interest is necessary to infringe upon, not to confer, a right.
Respect71 wrote:
The 14th Amendment applies the the baker as well.
The court found that none of the Baker's rights were violated.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
Respect71 wrote:
To answer your question…  It’s interesting you think I am standing up for religious and moral views, when I am only pointing out the BLARING difference between a same-sex couple and man-woman couples, and the fact that redefining marriage creates more confusion and removes freedom those who believe in traditional marriage, religious or otherwise. The biggest lie in human history is “marriage equality”. As our government changes and adjusts laws, same-sex couples, regardless, will always have to preface their union with “gay” or “same-sex”.
So, the reality remains that you can offer no state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1351 Feb 12, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>We've been down this road before, you should have taken better notes. I've demonstrated how it is a reasonable restriction of the business owner's right to refuse service and how preventing such acts of discrimination serves a compelling interest, thus meeting the requirement to limit practicing what one preaches in the public square. You have offered no argument to the contrary. Sorry, but that is the reality.
We will continue down this road because every American is guaranteed freedom. A wedding cake that symbolizes a celebration of a husband and wife is one of those freedoms.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1352 Feb 12, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Before you parrot legal terms, you would be wise to understand their meaning and applicability.
"Strict Scrutiny
A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.
The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution."
You see, a compelling state interest is necessary to infringe upon, not to confer, a right.
<quoted text>
The court found that none of the Baker's rights were violated.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
<quoted text>
So, the reality remains that you can offer no state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional.
So in other words you can’t provide ““a compelling governmental interest served by“ redefining marriage to include gay couples.

You cite the aclu which is a anti Christian (leftist) organization in recent years. Fines and jail because of his belief violates his right.

So reality remains, the gay relationship is different that a man-woman relationship.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1353 Feb 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
So in other words you can’t provide ““a compelling governmental interest served by“ redefining marriage to include gay couples.
I don't need to. A compelling state interest is needed to infringe upon, not to confer, a legal right.

However, just to thoroughly debunk your argument, the governmental interest is following the US Constitution and the guarantee of equal protection for all.

Can you come up with a compelling governmental interest served by restricting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional? I don't think you can.
Respect71 wrote:
You cite the aclu which is a anti Christian (leftist) organization in recent years. Fines and jail because of his belief violates his right.
No, the ACLU, merely has posted the easiest path to the court decision. the decision was issued by the STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS.
Had you bothered to take a moment to look at the document, you would have known that.
Respect71 wrote:
So reality remains, the gay relationship is different that a man-woman relationship.
And the reality remains homosexuals are still people, and as such are guaranteed equal protection of the laws.

You really aren't very good at making a rational argument.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1354 Feb 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So in other words you can’t provide ““a compelling governmental interest served by“ redefining marriage to include gay couples.
Compelling government interest is required for *discrimination*, not *inclusion*. The reasons for allowing gay people to marry are the same as allowing straight people to marry.
Respect71 wrote:
You cite the aclu which is a anti Christian (leftist) organization in recent years.
The ACLU is not anti-Christian. It is pro-civil rights, and has defended Christians many times.
It has only opposed Christians when Christians are violating the Constitutional rights of others.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Denver Health Medical Center, place of horrors (Jul '13) 7 hr Quirky 21
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 11 hr positronium 12,417
wheres the pain meds? 15 hr dev 4
What would happen if the United States ever dec... (Oct '10) Sun Random person 142
last post wins! (Feb '11) Sat mr goodwrench 24,647
You rule the planet. How do you save the human... (Dec '12) Sat Kawalski 1,302
Relocating advice Aug 29 Jjdenver3 10
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••