Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 3,712

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)

Full Story

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1356 Feb 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
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.
A wedding cake is a service he is required to offer regardless of race, religion, sex, national origin and/or sexual orientation of the person requesting that service, his blessings were not being sought. The constitutionality of Colorado's public accommodation laws was settled by their courts more than 50 years ago. He has no right to discriminate, even if God says he does, the state Constitution does not and neither does the US Constitution.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1357 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.
You really should take notes, you've had strict scrutiny explained to you a number of times now and yet you still get the concept ass backwards. When it comes to the individual's right to enter into marriage, the state must prove the compelling interest served by LIMITING the right, not by expanding it. Marriage is OUR right, not a privilege bestowed upon us by the government, let alone "the church". Unless the government can demonstrate that there is a compelling interest served by their limiting our right to marry based on the sex of the otherwise legally qualified person we wish to marry, the restriction is unacceptable to the Constitution.

Since the concept of strict scrutiny comes up in the discussion of the rights of the baker to practice what he believes, let me explain that one to you too, one more time. The compelling state interest served by limiting his right to give the bum's rush to a gay couple, preventing just that kind of discrimination in the first place. These laws were decided to be a constitutionally acceptable limitation on individual rights in Colorado 52 years ago. Blaming God shouldn't make him or his actions entitled to special protection. Sorry.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1358 Feb 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can’t remove the rights of others and expect your rights to remain intact.
Yet that is what you want to do.

You want the religious views of a select group to be given special rights that other groups won't have.

Don't you DARE claim I am incorrect when there is a push to give anti-gay christians the right to discriminate against a particular group, while at the same time they make it a crime for pro gays to practice their religion in Indiana.
Perry Willson

Longmont, CO

#1359 Feb 14, 2014
This happened in June, there has been a trial and the outcome was against the cake maker. Why is this still posted as recent news? Hasn't anyone else discriminated against gays in the past six month so to stay in the news they need to keep this one alive? It's over all ready, he has to make them cakes but do you really want someone making your food that doesn't want to? They may need to spit while mixing, several times!

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1360 Feb 14, 2014
Perry Willson wrote:
This happened in June, there has been a trial and the outcome was against the cake maker. Why is this still posted as recent news? Hasn't anyone else discriminated against gays in the past six month so to stay in the news they need to keep this one alive? It's over all ready, he has to make them cakes but do you really want someone making your food that doesn't want to? They may need to spit while mixing, several times!
There has been an administrative trial, both sides presented their case and the Judge ruled that the baker had violated their right to service on the basis of their sexual orientation and issued a cease and desist order for him not to be telling people he doesn't do "gay wedding cakes" any more and that the law limiting his right to refuse service and consequently, his right to practice what he preaches when it comes to "gay wedding cakes", acceptable to both the state and US Constitutions. That was back in December. It has stayed in the news because the baker and his good Christian lawyers are appealing the ruling. Most business owners are more than happy to comply with their obligations under the law, even if God don't like them, it's actually not all that common of an occurrence in places where sexual orientation is listed as a suspect classification and most that do happen never make any news, because most are settled before a trial. As to the rest of your comment, anyone that mean-spirited and stupid better give his heart and soul to God because the law is going to have his *ss for a while. Come on, if you knew someone did something like you suggested unto you, it wouldn't matter why (unless you had it coming), you'd have them arrested and sue them for every dime you could wring out of their pathetic hides.
Perry Willson

Longmont, CO

#1361 Feb 14, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>There has been an administrative trial, both sides presented their case and the Judge ruled that the baker had violated their right to service on the basis of their sexual orientation and issued a cease and desist order for him not to be telling people he doesn't do "gay wedding cakes" any more and that the law limiting his right to refuse service and consequently, his right to practice what he preaches when it comes to "gay wedding cakes", acceptable to both the state and US Constitutions. That was back in December. It has stayed in the news because the baker and his good Christian lawyers are appealing the ruling. Most business owners are more than happy to comply with their obligations under the law, even if God don't like them, it's actually not all that common of an occurrence in places where sexual orientation is listed as a suspect classification and most that do happen never make any news, because most are settled before a trial. As to the rest of your comment, anyone that mean-spirited and stupid better give his heart and soul to God because the law is going to have his *ss for a while. Come on, if you knew someone did something like you suggested unto you, it wouldn't matter why (unless you had it coming), you'd have them arrested and sue them for every dime you could wring out of their pathetic hides.
I'm just tired of this being news month after month when there has been no change, as far as what I suggested, anyone that has worked in a restaurant kitchen has seen that one happen to people that send back food to be replaced or recooked, not always but it happens often enough that I don't send food back nor would I insist someone that doesn't want to make food for me. That is the reality that has nothing to do with race, sexual choices or any other boundaries.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1362 Feb 19, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
“I don't need to.” Based on the fact that you can’t or that you haven’t a clue?
“A compelling state interest is needed to infringe upon, not to confer, a legal right.”  Like those you believe in traditional marriage?
“However, just to thoroughly debunk your argument, the governmental interest is following the US Constitution and the guarantee of equal protection for all.”  Redefining the meaning of marriage is not an equal protection matter.  If it is “the governmental interest is following the US Constitution” then it shouldn’t be involved with marriage at all, should it?&#8232;&#8232;“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.”  I just did.  When a society holds the definition of marriage as between man-woman couples and government determines to change that definition, it removes the Constitutional right to those who believe in traditional marriage, especially those who hold the religious belief.  
 
“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.&#8232;Had you bothered to take a moment to look at the document, you would have known that.”  I did know that, so therefore what?  The ACLU is on the side of Christians, people of faith, and secularists who believe in traditional marriage and gearing up to fight the court decision?
 
“And the reality remains homosexuals are still people, and as such are guaranteed equal protection of the laws.”  They are and they do, but redefining marriage and Changing the laws to include gays, won’t change the facts of these differences, and the Country is reaping unconstitutional consequences.
&#8232;“You really aren't very good at making a rational argument” As Apposed you’re your argument,““I don't need to.”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1363 Feb 19, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
“Compelling government interest is required for *discrimination*, not *inclusion*.”  Really?  Then why does our government have to redefine marriage to Include gays?
 
“The reasons for allowing gay people to marry are the same as allowing straight people to marry.”  Please explain what’s the same?
“The ACLU is not anti-Christian. It is pro-civil rights, and has defended Christians many times.&#8232;It has only opposed Christians when Christians are violating the Constitutional rights of others.”  The fact is the ACLU was founded by Roger Nash Baldwin who believed in democratic socialism, and while there is a history of taking cases where they defend Christians where are they in cases like this?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1364 Feb 19, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Compelling government interest is required for *discrimination*, not *inclusion*.”  Really?  Then why does our government have to redefine marriage to Include gays?
Because it is currently discriminatory. For the government to keep it that way, they need to provide a compelling government interest. No one has been able to come up with one.
 
Respect71 wrote:
“The reasons for allowing gay people to marry are the same as allowing straight people to marry.”  Please explain what’s the same?
The nature of the relationship. The love. The desire to commit. The legal entanglements. The shared rights and responsibilities. The increased health. The improved stability both for the members of the marriage and any children in that household.
Respect71 wrote:
The fact is the ACLU was founded by Roger Nash Baldwin who believed in democratic socialism, and while there is a history of taking cases where they defend Christians where are they in cases like this?
Who cares what Roger Nash Baldwin liked in a political system. The ACLU's mission is to defend Constitutional rights, and that's what they do, regardless of who the victim is.

They are not present in this case because business discrimination isn't a Constitutional right.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1365 Feb 19, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>A wedding cake is a service he is required to offer regardless of race, religion, sex, national origin and/or sexual orientation of the person requesting that service, his blessings were not being sought. The constitutionality of Colorado's public accommodation laws was settled by their courts more than 50 years ago. He has no right to discriminate, even if God says he does, the state Constitution does not and neither does the US Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1366 Feb 19, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You really should take notes, you've had strict scrutiny explained to you a number of times now and yet you still get the concept ass backwards. When it comes to the individual's right to enter into marriage, the state must prove the compelling interest served by LIMITING the right, not by expanding it. Marriage is OUR right, not a privilege bestowed upon us by the government, let alone "the church". Unless the government can demonstrate that there is a compelling interest served by their limiting our right to marry based on the sex of the otherwise legally qualified person we wish to marry, the restriction is unacceptable to the Constitution.
Since the concept of strict scrutiny comes up in the discussion of the rights of the baker to practice what he believes, let me explain that one to you too, one more time. The compelling state interest served by limiting his right to give the bum's rush to a gay couple, preventing just that kind of discrimination in the first place. These laws were decided to be a constitutionally acceptable limitation on individual rights in Colorado 52 years ago. Blaming God shouldn't make him or his actions entitled to special protection. Sorry.
“You really should take notes, you've had strict scrutiny explained to you a number of times now and yet you still get the concept ass backwards. When it comes to the individual's right to enter into marriage, the state must prove the compelling interest served by LIMITING the right, not by expanding it. Marriage is OUR right, not a privilege bestowed upon us by the government, let alone "the church". Unless the government can demonstrate that there is a compelling interest served by their limiting our right to marry based on the sex of the otherwise legally qualified person we wish to marry, the restriction is unacceptable to the Constitution.” The why do you charge government with changing the definition and endorsing same-sex marriage?&#8232;&#8232 ;“Since the concept of strict scrutiny comes up in the discussion of the rights of the baker to practice what he believes, let me explain that one to you too, one more time. The compelling state interest served by limiting his right to give the bum's rush to a gay couple, preventing just that kind of discrimination in the first place. These laws were decided to be a constitutionally acceptable limitation on individual rights in Colorado 52 years ago. Blaming God shouldn't make him or his actions entitled to special protection. Sorry.”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1367 Feb 19, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yet that is what you want to do.
You want the religious views of a select group to be given special rights that other groups won't have.
Don't you DARE claim I am incorrect when there is a push to give anti-gay christians the right to discriminate against a particular group, while at the same time they make it a crime for pro gays to practice their religion in Indiana.
 
“Yet that is what you want to do.” So tell us how NOT selling a cake is removing the right of the gay couple?&#8232;&#8232;

“You want the religious views of a select group to be given special rights that other groups won't have.” I want the individual rights we are guaranteed by our Constitution to apply to ALL Americans. Even a stupid baker.

&#8232;&#8232;“Don't you DARE claim I am incorrect when there is a push to give anti-gay christians the right to discriminate against a particular group, while at the same time they make it a crime for pro gays to practice their religion in Indiana.” Tell me, what are you doing by supporting government to put a baker in jail and fine him for literally doing NOTHING to a gay couple?
Campy

Las Vegas, NV

#1368 Feb 19, 2014
I'm sure the bakers will find themselves on the right side of history.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1369 Feb 19, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“I don't need to.” Based on the fact that you can’t or that you haven’t a clue?
“A compelling state interest is needed to infringe upon, not to confer, a legal right.”  Like those you believe in traditional marriage?
“However, just to thoroughly debunk your argument, the governmental interest is following the US Constitution and the guarantee of equal protection for all.”  Redefining the meaning of marriage is not an equal protection matter.
You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
Following the US Constitution means providing equal protection of the law for all.
Respect71 wrote:
If it is “the governmental interest is following the US Constitution” then it shouldn’t be involved with marriage at all, should it?&#8232;&#8232;“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.”  I just did.  When a society holds the definition of marriage as between man-woman couples and government determines to change that definition, it removes the Constitutional right to those who believe in traditional marriage, especially those who hold the religious belief.  
When a society holds such a definition, and it excludes people from equal protection of the law, then that society must proved their exclusions serve a legitimate interest. This has been explained to you, one wonders if you are too stupid to understand it?
Respect71 wrote:
“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.&#8232;Had you bothered to take a moment to look at the document, you would have known that.”  I did know that, so therefore what?  The ACLU is on the side of Christians, people of faith, and secularists who believe in traditional marriage and gearing up to fight the court decision?
The ACLU often fights Christians who overstep their bounds, moron.
Respect71 wrote:
“And the reality remains homosexuals are still people, and as such are guaranteed equal protection of the laws.”  They are and they do, but redefining marriage and Changing the laws to include gays, won’t change the facts of these differences, and the Country is reaping unconstitutional consequences.
&#8232;“You really aren't very good at making a rational argument” As Apposed you’re your argument,““I don't need to.”
Are homosexuals people, if so, you analysis is fundamentally flawed.

Congratulations, you have reaffirmed that you are an imbecile. Originally, you tried to appear rational, clearly you have abandoned that pretense.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1370 Feb 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Your ignorance ain't bliss sweetie, it's just ignorance. You can quote that sentence all you want, but it has never been an absolute right.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1371 Feb 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The why do you charge government with changing the definition and endorsing same-sex marriage?
Are you this obtuse in real life? One more time for the moron, marriage is a right.
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
No, really? Still not an absolute right, no matter how many times you repeat it.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1373 Feb 22, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
 
“Yet that is what you want to do.” So tell us how NOT selling a cake is removing the right of the gay couple?&#8232;&#8232;
“You want the religious views of a select group to be given special rights that other groups won't have.” I want the individual rights we are guaranteed by our Constitution to apply to ALL Americans. Even a stupid baker.
&#8232;&#8232;“Don't you DARE claim I am incorrect when there is a push to give anti-gay christians the right to discriminate against a particular group, while at the same time they make it a crime for pro gays to practice their religion in Indiana.” Tell me, what are you doing by supporting government to put a baker in jail and fine him for literally doing NOTHING to a gay couple?
What am I doing? The same thing many whites did when we stood for the rights of blacks in the 60"s

Now your turn to answer a question.

Why do you ask such stupid questions? Discrimination base on religion is a crime. End of story.If it wasn't there's be no need for your "christian businesses" (I still think Jesus would gag on that) to ask for special exemptions from the same laws every other business has top follow.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1374 Feb 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
Following the US Constitution means providing equal protection of the law for all.
<quoted text>
When a society holds such a definition, and it excludes people from equal protection of the law, then that society must proved their exclusions serve a legitimate interest. This has been explained to you, one wonders if you are too stupid to understand it?
<quoted text>
The ACLU often fights Christians who overstep their bounds, moron.
<quoted text>
Are homosexuals people, if so, you analysis is fundamentally flawed.
Congratulations, you have reaffirmed that you are an imbecile. Originally, you tried to appear rational, clearly you have abandoned that pretense.
“You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
Following the US Constitution means providing equal protection of the law for all.” Correct, and I baker who sells a wedding cake to man-woman couples based based on his religous view is protected. Government can’t punish him for that.

“When a society holds such a definition, and it excludes people from equal protection of the law, then that society must proved their exclusions serve a legitimate interest.” Based on what? How is it in the government’s interest to redefine marriage in fovor of political correctness? It’s unconstitutional. This has been explained to you.

“The ACLU often fights Christians who overstep their bounds, moron.” Calling me a name only reduces your credibility. They should fight for this baker who’s rights are clearly violated, but because they are leftists... They won’t.

“Are homosexuals people, if so, you analysis is fundamentally flawed.” They are people... And their relationship falls outside of the definition of marriage. Charging the government to force a change in the redefinition of marriage still won’t change that fact.

“Congratulations, you have reaffirmed that you are an imbecile. Originally, you tried to appear rational, clearly you have abandoned that pretense.” I have pointed to facts, and you have insulted me, and no matter how many insult you come up with it doesn’t change the facts.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1375 Feb 25, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Your ignorance ain't bliss sweetie, it's just ignorance. You can quote that sentence all you want, but it has never been an absolute right.
I never said it was an “absolute right.” However, a baker how chooses to stand for man-woman marriage because of his religious belief by not selling a WEDDING cake to a gay couple is well within his right.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1376 Feb 25, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Are you this obtuse in real life? One more time for the moron, marriage is a right.<quoted text>No, really? Still not an absolute right, no matter how many times you repeat it.
“Are you this obtuse in real life? One more time for the moron, marriage is a right.” Really? Where in our constitution do you find that “marriage is a right.”?
Truthfully, the government getting involved in ANYONES life in regards to marriage is unconstitutional. Would we be having this discussion if government wasn’t involved at all in this matter and left it to the people? No.

“No, really? Still not an absolute right, no matter how many times you repeat it.” Truly, it’s a God given right and government cannot punish a man for his beliefs.

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
Attire for Formal Weddings 3 hr kately 1
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 9 hr positronium 12,781
Teacher back in class after Bush-Hitler comparison (Mar '06) 12 hr Swedenforever 64
T r a m a d o l & X A N A X and much more 16 hr Deal 1
Gay/Bi teens in/near Denver, Colorado Sat Teen1616 2
What is Credence Independent Auditors and Advis... Oct 17 cuthbertellen 3
Denver tar? (Aug '11) Oct 16 mya 4
Denver Dating
Find my Match

Denver Jobs

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 ]