Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 53784 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

#1398 Feb 26, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Your proof of ANY of this would be what exactly? I can point to court case after court case proving you foolish, what can you point to?
<quoted text>Marriage is a legal contract, the government has an interest in ALL legal contracts. Sorry.
<quoted text>They aren't being punished for their beliefs you dolt, they are being punished for their expression of them. If thinking that someone who takes the life another in the name of God should be punished for it makes me small minded, thinking that they have such a right makes you an idiot.
<quoted text>No, really? That doesn't refute my point, that there are in fact valid limitations on the free exercise right, now does it?
<quoted text>Not expecting you to agree with me, expecting you to respect my right to be an equal member of society, just as I do with you.
“that there are in fact valid limitations on the free exercise right, now does it?” There are but not baking a wedding cake is not one of them.

“Not expecting you to agree with me, expecting you to respect my right to be an equal member of society, just as I do with you.” And I do... But when you impose you belief on a baker that have should use his talent to promote your views, that’s not okay.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1399 Feb 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you high? This is like saying, let's pretend for a moment that humans don't need oxygen in order to live.
You are clearly conflating two unrelated issues. Namely civil marriage and religious marriage. Civil marriage is a contract to secure legal rights and protections, it is administered by the government, which is beholden to provide all persons within it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Religious marriage is a covenant with "God," administered by the church, and is little more than a symbolic pact, it carries no legal rights or protections.
The two are separate issues, and separate unions. Allowing same sex couples to civilly marry has no impact upon religious marriage, and no church need perform marriages that they find to be objectionable, sinful, or wrong. That does not change when civil same sex marriage is allowed. The churches may still discriminate as they see fit, and they cannot be compelled to perform marriages that are at odds with their religious beliefs.
You are clearly trying to place gays within a definition that they don’t fit in, because of this you charge government to force bakers to bake wedding cakes for people other than husband and wife.

KarlVIIIII

“No Tea for Me”

Since: Nov 13

Centennial, Co

#1400 Feb 26, 2014
If the "Baker" boy doesn't like homosexuals because in his "Religion" it is "Sin"
Where are the laws saying business owners can refuse service to customers on the basis of all the other sins? Why just single out homosexuality?

Being a Muslim is against his Christian faith so can he not bake a Muslim a cake?

Where do you draw the line?

If one is in business to serve the public that is ALL inclusive. If he wants to bake cakes for Heterosexual Christians only go to his nearest Church fire up their oven and bake away! But Do NOT Sell them to the Public.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1401 Feb 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The State is not preventing discrimination, it is penalizing a man for not using his talents in support of “gay marriage”.
If he had obeyed the law, the state would have prevented discrimination. He hasn't been penalized, just ordered to obey the law.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1402 Feb 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
By all means, please do.
Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. Now your turn, put up or shut up, provide even a single shred of evidence to support anything you have said here.
Respect71 wrote:
LOL... good dodge... Marriage is much more than a “legal contract, the government has an interest in ALL legal contracts” And again, in my opinion, government has NO RIGHTS to be involved with anyone (gay or straight) concerning marriage.
That is your idea of a rebuttal? I'm so sorry.
Respect71 wrote:
And the difference is?
Actions, moron.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1403 Feb 26, 2014
[QUOTE who="Respect71"
“that there are in fact valid limitations on the free exercise right, now does it?” There are but not baking a wedding cake is not one of them.[/QUOTE]PROVE IT. It's time for you either to put up or shut up.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1404 Feb 26, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If he had obeyed the law, the state would have prevented discrimination. He hasn't been penalized, just ordered to obey the law.
The law violates his belief in traditional marriage by forcing him to use his talents to support something he doesn’t believe in,“gay marriage”. Why do you support violating freedom for ALL Americans, by charging government to force people to go against your beliefs?

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/02/25/weh...

Should he be allowed to do so?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1405 Feb 26, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. Now your turn, put up or shut up, provide even a single shred of evidence to support anything you have said here.
<quoted text>That is your idea of a rebuttal? I'm so sorry.
<quoted text>Actions, moron.
“Loving v Virginia” Was a race case (note man-woman couple).“Turner v. Safley” Was a prisson case (note man-woman couple) leaned upon “Loving v Virginia”.“Zablocki v Redhail” also relied on ““Loving v Virginia”(note man-woman couple) and all refer to the 14th amendment. Now where does it say that gays have a right to marry someone of the same sex?

If you like government in your business, then by all means vote for the socialists.

So a church that acts on it’s beliefs is okay, but a individual Christian who acts on his beliefs needs to be punished by government... That’s not freedom, it’s tyranny.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1406 Feb 26, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>PROVE IT. It's time for you either to put up or shut up.
Government forcing a man to use his talents to support “gay marriage” is not the same as killing the gay couple. Your assertion isn’t same or equal at all and intellectually dishonest.


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1407 Feb 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The law violates his belief in traditional marriage by forcing him to use his talents to support something he doesn’t believe in,“gay marriage”. Why do you support violating freedom for ALL Americans, by charging government to force people to go against your beliefs?
Once again, his right is limited, not absolute, his choices are provide his services on an equal basis or not offer those services. He has no right to discriminate on the basis of their sexual orientation. Sorry. As for your attempt to change the subject, political beliefs, not a suspect classification.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1408 Feb 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“Loving v Virginia” Was a race case (note man-woman couple).“Turner v. Safley” Was a prisson case (note man-woman couple) leaned upon “Loving v Virginia”.“Zablocki v Redhail” also relied on ““Loving v Virginia”(note man-woman couple) and all refer to the 14th amendment. Now where does it say that gays have a right to marry someone of the same sex?
If you like government in your business, then by all means vote for the socialists.
So a church that acts on it’s beliefs is okay, but a individual Christian who acts on his beliefs needs to be punished by government... That’s not freedom, it’s tyranny.
Loving spelled out the individual's right to marry you blithering idiot, Turner and Zablocki affirmed that unless there is a compelling interest being served on the limitation of that right it is unconstitutional.

Now where is your proof of anything YOU have said? Are you forgetting that part of the challenge?

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1409 Feb 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Government forcing a man to use his talents to support “gay marriage” is not the same as killing the gay couple. Your assertion isn’t same or equal at all and intellectually dishonest.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Sweetie, you were supposed to provide proof of your argument, not proof that you are an idiot. I already knew that.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1410 Feb 27, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Once again, his right is limited, not absolute, his choices are provide his services on an equal basis or not offer those services. He has no right to discriminate on the basis of their sexual orientation. Sorry. As for your attempt to change the subject, political beliefs, not a suspect classification.
What your are advocating is a political belief. You believe it is okay for government to punish a man for his religious belief. Right? My contention throughout this entire thread is the baker has to right to not be forced to support gay marriage by using his talents.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1411 Feb 27, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Loving spelled out the individual's right to marry you blithering idiot, Turner and Zablocki affirmed that unless there is a compelling interest being served on the limitation of that right it is unconstitutional.
Now where is your proof of anything YOU have said? Are you forgetting that part of the challenge?
I asked you to clarify? Where in any of those cases does it say that gays have a right to marry someone of the same sex?
Truly this is all for another thread. The problem here is if our government is going to change the definition of marriage to include gay couples how then do we allow those who believe in traditional marriage to exist without government prosecution?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1412 Feb 27, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, you were supposed to provide proof of your argument, not proof that you are an idiot. I already knew that.
Is the gay couple dead from not being able to purchase a wedding cake? No. Is the gay couple maimed or injured from the baker who didn’t sell them a wedding cake? Then your argument is void.
The baker does not want to support “gay marriage” with the talents of designing wedding cakes. Just because you believe in “gay marriage” and you dislike his belief you force your ideals on him by abusing the law.

Level 1

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1413 Feb 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
This is the only bakery in Denver?
Go to another one, buy the cake and enjoy it.
According to google there are 253 Bakeries in the area.

Level 1

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1414 Feb 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the gay couple dead from not being able to purchase a wedding cake? No. Is the gay couple maimed or injured from the baker who didn’t sell them a wedding cake? Then your argument is void.
The baker does not want to support “gay marriage” with the talents of designing wedding cakes. Just because you believe in “gay marriage” and you dislike his belief you force your ideals on him by abusing the law.
Exactly. And nothing you say will change his mind. NOTHING! RickInKansas believes in force and that gay rights supersede the rights of all others. He even insists that violating the rights of the baker and forcing him to bake cakes is completely in harmony with the US Constitution.

Level 1

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1415 Feb 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you to clarify? Where in any of those cases does it say that gays have a right to marry someone of the same sex?
Truly this is all for another thread. The problem here is if our government is going to change the definition of marriage to include gay couples how then do we allow those who believe in traditional marriage to exist without government prosecution?
The Government should not have a definition of marriage. The Government has a job of protecting each individuals right to decide for themselves what a marriage is and it does not have the job of defining what marriages are. America is about the freedom on the individual not about the government being involved in our personal lives.

Level 1

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1416 Feb 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
What your are advocating is a political belief. You believe it is okay for government to punish a man for his religious belief. Right? My contention throughout this entire thread is the baker has to right to not be forced to support gay marriage by using his talents.
Rick believes the baker looses his rights when he opens a business and then must comply with the will of the majority to keep his business. He also insists this is all completely Constitutional.

The Baker has the right to associate only with those he wishes to associate with. He has the right to refuse service when he opens a business although the government prevents him from exercising his rights.

If gays can demand bakers be punished for refusing them wedding cakes why not demand that straights be punished for refusing their sexual advances?

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1417 Feb 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
What your are advocating is a political belief.
What are you babbling about now?
Respect71 wrote:
You believe it is okay for government to punish a man for his religious belief. Right?
Wrong still, he was admonished, not punished and it was for his act, not his beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
My contention throughout this entire thread is the baker has to right to not be forced to support gay marriage by using his talents.
I know dear and his religious beliefs are irrelevant. He either has to provide his service to all who have a legal right to them, or he doesn't offer them at all. He enjoys no special rights.

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) 5 hr Respect71 29,635
Nicole DuBois Savage (Feb '17) Sun Jamie Dundee 19
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) Aug 19 InsideJob 739
last post wins! (Feb '11) Aug 18 Princess Hey 26,389
Taylor Swift touched or not touched Aug 18 Assquatch 3
Respect71 is a hypocritical LOSER (Dec '15) Aug 17 Avid reader 16
Play the "end of the word" game (Jul '11) Aug 16 texas pete 4,272

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages