Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 15,989

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

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1437 Feb 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I am not denying any gay the right to marry. I point to the fact that the gay relationship is different thereby deserving of its own definition. If “gay marriage” is what they want then so be it, but it shouldn’t infringe on the right of business owner who don’t feel their talents are for supporting “gay marriage” when they only believe in a husband and wife marriage.
If you want to allow politicians the right to generate new laws to achieve the same protection under the law, adding pork all along the way, you are dimmer than I have given you credit for.

The reality remains, that you have failed to indicate any state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between opposite sex couples that would render such a restricted definition constitutional.

Why would any sane person create a second law to guarantee the same legal rights and protections.
Respect71 wrote:
I have but you chose to ignore it just like the court did. Shall the government start taxing you the same amount of dollars that millionaires pay? Equal protection under the law right?
Sorry Charlie, the court explained its decision in terms even a child can understand. That you disagree with them does not negate their ruling. You see, their opinion carries the weight of law, yours does not.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
It really is a fascinating read, and it is quite short.
Respect71 wrote:
Why is he being force by government to support gay marriage with his talents? And why is the bar owner in LA exempt?
He is not being forced by the government to support gay marriage. He is being denied the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just as he cannot discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, religion, or any number of other reasons.

How does it feel defending other bigots who break the law?

Beside which, his objections make no sense even by the teachings of his own religion. Jesus taught to love your neighbor, forgive even your enemy, to pay unto the government that which is theirs and follow their laws, and not to judge others. In short, his actions are decidedly unchristian.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1438 Feb 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is he being force by government to support gay marriage with his talents?
He's not. Selling a cake isn't supporting gay marriage.

If McDonalds sells a guy a couple hamburgers and he takes one to his mistress, is McDonalds supporting an affair?

If a gun shop sells a woman a gun and a few months later, she shoots someone, is the gun shop supporting murder?

If Home Depot sells some fertilizer and someone makes a bomb out of it, does Home Depot support terrorism?

Selling a cake is selling a cake. That's it.

“Just another opinion”

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#1439 Feb 27, 2014
Larry wrote:
Why should American society bow to the pressure of the 3% of the population that is homosexual? Homosexuality might be a lifestyle chosen by a few, but it is still morally wrong and disgusting.
Why should we support a business that obviously is too busy to do a good job for us if they can turn down business from someone because of who they love? They are not going to bake with love if you think about it and didn't your grandma say love was the secret ingredient in all her recipes!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1440 Feb 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text> I am not a bigot. For you to say I am is more insulting that your name calling. I love my gay friends and want them to be with who they love… And they did even before government attempt to redefine marriage, but my belief in traditional marriage is a God given right and our Country is failing in protecting that right.
There’s no question that Jan Brewer did the right thing yesterday. No moral question. And no legal question either. Well, let me slightly amend that: With this Supreme Court, you never know about the future. But we know about the past, and decades of civil-rights case law are squarely on Brewer’s side, and supporters of SB 1062 just have to see this clearly and squarely and accept it.
It’s not like we’ve never fought over these questions. We have, of course, and a result, there’s a history here. And that history, that body of court decisions, says clearly, like it or not, that generally speaking, citizens cannot opt out of civil rights laws.
As Harvard law professor Noah Feldman pointed out yesterday in a Bloomberg view column, segregationist business owners in the South argued after the civil rights act of 1964 that their “constitutional right to associate” as they chose should permit them not to serve black customers.(The religious-liberty right, Feldman notes, has the same “constitutional status” as the right to associate.) But courts never said that this was permissible.
We may laugh today at the idea that the racist owner of a hardware store in Natchez in 1965 could have refused to sell a black carpenter a bag of masonry nails. But it was no laughing matter then. This was real. Congress, and then the courts, put a stop to it. As Feldman told me yesterday in a follow-up exchange:“Freedom to associate and exercise religion are basic rights. Excluding customers isn't.”
Read more: http://www.1037wcky.com/articles/national-new...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1441 Feb 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is he being force by government to support gay marriage with his talents? And why is the bar owner in LA exempt?
He is NOT being forced to do so. If he sells wedding cakes he can't use religion to decide who he sells those cakes to.

Are you related to State Sen Melvin of Arizona?

You are being intentionally ridiculous when you ask if under 'equal protection public accommodation laws' everyone should pay the same dollar amount in taxes.

(oddly enough the baker and everyone else does pay the same dollar amount in sales taxes when they purchase an item; that's equal protection)

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1442 Feb 27, 2014
lides wrote:
Different day, same crap.
The baker's rights were in no way infringed, and in denying service he broke the law. Period, end of story. I am tired of explaining the law to people too dim to understand it.
That child couldn't find their way out of a phone booth, even if you give them directions.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1443 Feb 28, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Different day, same crap.
The baker's rights were in no way infringed, and in denying service he broke the law. Period, end of story. I am tired of explaining the law to people too dim to understand it.
The baker is being forced by government to serve a wedding cake that he believes is for a husband and wife. The Country was founded on individual Liberty, mostly because of religious oppression and persecution. Now you disrespect your fellow American because of a wedding cake? Sad.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1444 Feb 28, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to allow politicians the right to generate new laws to achieve the same protection under the law, adding pork all along the way, you are dimmer than I have given you credit for.
The reality remains, that you have failed to indicate any state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between opposite sex couples that would render such a restricted definition constitutional.
Why would any sane person create a second law to guarantee the same legal rights and protections.
<quoted text>
Sorry Charlie, the court explained its decision in terms even a child can understand. That you disagree with them does not negate their ruling. You see, their opinion carries the weight of law, yours does not.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
It really is a fascinating read, and it is quite short.
<quoted text>
He is not being forced by the government to support gay marriage. He is being denied the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just as he cannot discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, religion, or any number of other reasons.
How does it feel defending other bigots who break the law?
Beside which, his objections make no sense even by the teachings of his own religion. Jesus taught to love your neighbor, forgive even your enemy, to pay unto the government that which is theirs and follow their laws, and not to judge others. In short, his actions are decidedly unchristian.
“If you want to allow politicians the right to generate new laws to achieve the same protection under the law, adding pork all along the way, you are dimmer than I have given you credit for.” Yet you charge the government with redefining the definition of marriage.
“The reality remains, that you have failed to indicate any state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between opposite sex couples that would render such a restricted definition constitutional.” I have and you choose to ignore.

“Why would any sane person create a second law to guarantee the same legal rights and protections.” I suppose the same person that creates a law that punishes a person MORE for killing a gay person than killing a non-gay person. Are you prepared to go on record saying that the gay relationship is not valuable enough to have its own definition?
“Sorry Charlie, the court explained its decision in terms even a child can understand. That you disagree with them does not negate their ruling. You see, their opinion carries the weight of law, yours does not.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse ...
It really is a fascinating read, and it is quite short.” I’ve read it, I disagree, and we’ll see how it resolves.

“He is not being forced by the government to support gay marriage.” To him, using his talents and serving a wedding cake for a couple other than husband and wife, is supporting “gay marriage”.
“He is being denied the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” Remember the read that is” fascinating read, and it is quite short.” He was willing to sell them anything else in his shop, except wedding cakes.
“How does it feel defending other bigots who break the law?” Liberty belongs to ALL Americans even if I think they are a bigot.

“Beside which, his objections make no sense even by the teachings of his own religion. Jesus taught to love your neighbor, forgive even your enemy, to pay unto the government that which is theirs and follow their laws, and not to judge others. In short, his actions are decidedly unchristian.” That’s an interesting observation. Are you advocating for that state to mandate religious behavior and judging it a Christian or not? What about Muslins or Jews?
Just to point to fact when Jesus spoke of Marriage he spoke to husbands and wives.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1445 Feb 28, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
He's not. Selling a cake isn't supporting gay marriage.
If McDonalds sells a guy a couple hamburgers and he takes one to his mistress, is McDonalds supporting an affair?
If a gun shop sells a woman a gun and a few months later, she shoots someone, is the gun shop supporting murder?
If Home Depot sells some fertilizer and someone makes a bomb out of it, does Home Depot support terrorism?
Selling a cake is selling a cake. That's it.
“He's not. Selling a cake isn't supporting gay marriage.” Selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is preserved as supporting “gay marriage”.

“If McDonalds sells a guy a couple hamburgers and he takes one to his mistress, is McDonalds supporting an affair?” We are not talking about hamburgers or mistresses.

“If a gun shop sells a woman a gun and a few months later, she shoots someone, is the gun shop supporting murder?” In the leftist, anti-gun mind, I’m 99.99% sure they would say yes, however, we aren’t talking about guns.

“If Home Depot sells some fertilizer and someone makes a bomb out of it, does Home Depot support terrorism?” Grasping for staws.

“Selling a cake is selling a cake. That's it.” Not when it’s designed to celebrate a husband and wife coming together in marriage. It’s fine that you don’t understand that value, but it’s EVERY American’s right to be able to act on their own values.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1446 Feb 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>There’s no question that Jan Brewer did the right thing yesterday. No moral question. And no legal question either. Well, let me slightly amend that: With this Supreme Court, you never know about the future. But we know about the past, and decades of civil-rights case law are squarely on Brewer’s side, and supporters of SB 1062 just have to see this clearly and squarely and accept it.
It’s not like we’ve never fought over these questions. We have, of course, and a result, there’s a history here. And that history, that body of court decisions, says clearly, like it or not, that generally speaking, citizens cannot opt out of civil rights laws.
As Harvard law professor Noah Feldman pointed out yesterday in a Bloomberg view column, segregationist business owners in the South argued after the civil rights act of 1964 that their “constitutional right to associate” as they chose should permit them not to serve black customers.(The religious-liberty right, Feldman notes, has the same “constitutional status” as the right to associate.) But courts never said that this was permissible.
We may laugh today at the idea that the racist owner of a hardware store in Natchez in 1965 could have refused to sell a black carpenter a bag of masonry nails. But it was no laughing matter then. This was real. Congress, and then the courts, put a stop to it. As Feldman told me yesterday in a follow-up exchange:“Freedom to associate and exercise religion are basic rights. Excluding customers isn't.”
Read more: http://www.1037wcky.com/articles/national-new...
Read the bill. Where does it state,“ANTI-GAY”. It is absolutely a pro religious freedom bill.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/s...
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/summary...
The media called it a “anti-gay” bill. So you and all your leftist bloggers flipped out in fear.
Governor Brewer was bullied into vetoing this bill and plays the game of politics. It’s absolutely understandable as to why she vetoed but it’s sad that a bill like this has to even be proposed at all, in a Country that is founded upon religious liberty.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1447 Feb 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>He is NOT being forced to do so. If he sells wedding cakes he can't use religion to decide who he sells those cakes to.
Are you related to State Sen Melvin of Arizona?
You are being intentionally ridiculous when you ask if under 'equal protection public accommodation laws' everyone should pay the same dollar amount in taxes.
(oddly enough the baker and everyone else does pay the same dollar amount in sales taxes when they purchase an item; that's equal protection)
I didn’t say,“'equal protection public accommodation laws”. If you were reading the posts the person I was arguing with continues to say gays have rights to marry and claims “equal protection under law”… My example is valid. The relationship of a gay person is not the SAME or EQUAL to that of a husband and wife relationship…

I have been dying to ask this but how to Bisexuals and Transgenders fit into the diffenition of “gay marriage”?

In a Country the is founded on individual and religious liberties it is sad that we even have to argue.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1448 Feb 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The baker is being forced by government to serve a wedding cake that he believes is for a husband and wife. The Country was founded on individual Liberty, mostly because of religious oppression and persecution. Now you disrespect your fellow American because of a wedding cake? Sad.
The baker is not being forced into a same sex union, nor does the cake represent free speech.
Read the court decision. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...

The reality remains that the baker is not allowed to force potential clients to abide by his religious moral views, which would violate the potential client's free exercise.

Your argument is hysterical, in part because every facet of it has already been addressed in a court of law.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1449 Feb 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Yet you charge the government with redefining the definition of marriage.
No, I don't. I do expect the state governments to provide all people within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Marriage is one such protection in every state in the union, and you seem incapable of offering any reason why same sex couples should be excluded from equal protection of the law to marry.
Respect71 wrote:
I have and you choose to ignore.
No, you haven't. You have offered poorly reasoned rationalizations that have been dismissed by a court of law.
Respect71 wrote:
I suppose the same person that creates a law that punishes a person MORE for killing a gay person than killing a non-gay person. Are you prepared to go on record saying that the gay relationship is not valuable enough to have its own definition?
Is that the best you can do? I don't think citing bias crimes is really your strongest suit to play here. In fact, it seems outright foolish.
Respect71 wrote:
I’ve read it, I disagree, and we’ll see how it resolves.
Your opinion does not carry the weight of law, the court's does.
It will be upheld, because the legal reasoning is sound.
Respect71 wrote:
To him, using his talents and serving a wedding cake for a couple other than husband and wife, is supporting “gay marriage”.
"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."
Respect71 wrote:
He was willing to sell them anything else in his shop, except wedding cakes.
Can you cite an article that would support this assumption?
Respect71 wrote:
Liberty belongs to ALL Americans even if I think they are a bigot.
And, the baker's liberty way in no way threatened.
Respect71 wrote:
That’s an interesting observation. Are you advocating for that state to mandate religious behavior and judging it a Christian or not? What about Muslins or Jews?
Just to point to fact when Jesus spoke of Marriage he spoke to husbands and wives.
Not at all, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the baker. You share in the hypocrisy by rushing to his defense using his hypocritical stance. Congratulations, you're a bigot.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1450 Feb 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“He's not. Selling a cake isn't supporting gay marriage.” Selling a wedding cake to a gay couple is preserved as supporting “gay marriage”.
Not under any reasonable definition.
Respect71 wrote:
“If McDonalds sells a guy a couple hamburgers and he takes one to his mistress, is McDonalds supporting an affair?” We are not talking about hamburgers or mistresses.
It's the exact same concept. A product is sold and later used by the customer during an event the seller objects to.
Respect71 wrote:
“If Home Depot sells some fertilizer and someone makes a bomb out of it, does Home Depot support terrorism?” Grasping for staws.
Why can't you tell me the difference between my analogies and the baker example?
Respect71 wrote:
Not when it’s designed to celebrate a husband and wife coming together in marriage. It’s fine that you don’t understand that value, but it’s EVERY American’s right to be able to act on their own values.
A cake isn't designed to do anything other than look nice and be eaten.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1451 Feb 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn’t say,“'equal protection public accommodation laws”. If you were reading the posts the person I was arguing with continues to say gays have rights to marry and claims “equal protection under law”… My example is valid. The relationship of a gay person is not the SAME or EQUAL to that of a husband and wife relationship…
I have been dying to ask this but how to Bisexuals and Transgenders fit into the diffenition of “gay marriage”?
In a Country the is founded on individual and religious liberties it is sad that we even have to argue.
Your example was ridiculous and so is your whining.

You want to make discrimination based on religion legal. Stop lying. This is not about religious freedom it's a flagrant attempt to gain special rights fo0r people who want to practice religious bigotry and oppression.

You DARE claim people's religious rights are being denied when you have a State like Indiana that will jail people if they bless a SSM and you are SILENT about that.

You're a hypocrite.

Nuff said

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1452 Feb 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn’t say,“'equal protection public accommodation laws”. If you were reading the posts the person I was arguing with continues to say gays have rights to marry and claims “equal protection under law”… My example is valid. The relationship of a gay person is not the SAME or EQUAL to that of a husband and wife relationship…
I have been dying to ask this but how to Bisexuals and Transgenders fit into the diffenition of “gay marriage”?
In a Country the is founded on individual and religious liberties it is sad that we even have to argue.
This is why you are losing. Even the fools who passed the bill now see their stupidity.

Watch for yourself.

Gay-Ban - Arizona's Preemptive Strike
http://screen.yahoo.com/the-daily-show/gay-ba...

I now understand why you are so gullible that you swallow such crap.

Morally and Legally, the Right Call in Arizona
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02...

"There’s no question that Jan Brewer did the right thing yesterday. No moral question. And no legal question either. Well, let me slightly amend that: With this Supreme Court, you never know about the future. But we know about the past, and decades of civil-rights case law are squarely on Brewer’s side, and supporters of SB 1062 just have to see this clearly and squarely and accept it.

It’s not like we’ve never fought over these questions. We have, of course, and a result, there’s a history here. And that history, that body of court decisions, says clearly, like it or not, that generally speaking, citizens cannot opt out of civil rights laws.

As Harvard law professor Noah Feldman pointed out yesterday in a Bloomberg view column, segregationist business owners in the South argued after the civil rights act of 1964 that their “constitutional right to associate” as they chose should permit them not to serve black customers.(The religious-liberty right, Feldman notes, has the same “constitutional status” as the right to associate.) But courts never said that this was permissible.

We may laugh today at the idea that the racist owner of a hardware store in Natchez in 1965 could have refused to sell a black carpenter a bag of masonry nails. But it was no laughing matter then. This was real. Congress, and then the courts, put a stop to it. As Feldman told me yesterday in a follow-up exchange:“Freedom to associate and exercise religion are basic rights. Excluding customers isn't....

But a business vending to the general public? No way. If these “Christians” in Arizona are permitted to deny their services to same-sex couples, then atheist small-businesses owners in Berkeley are perfectly within their rights to hang a sign:“No Christian evangelicals served.” It would be crazy for courts to open that door.”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1454 Mar 3, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The baker is not being forced into a same sex union, nor does the cake represent free speech.
Read the court decision. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
The reality remains that the baker is not allowed to force potential clients to abide by his religious moral views, which would violate the potential client's free exercise.
Your argument is hysterical, in part because every facet of it has already been addressed in a court of law.
Your argument is based on liberal judicial ignorance, in a Country that was FOUNDED on RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. But we shall see how this case will resolve.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1455 Mar 3, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't. I do expect the state gover.
“No, I don't. I do expect the state governments to provide all people within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Marriage is one such protection in every state in the union, and you seem incapable of offering any reason why same sex couples should be excluded from equal protection of the law to marry.” Because that relationship falls OUTSIDE the definition of marriage. It’s not my fault that you can’t understand the difference.

“No, you haven't. You have offered poorly reasoned rationalizations that have been dismissed by a court of law.” I have. The relationship fall OUTSIDE the definition of marriage.

“Is that the best you can do? I don't think citing bias crimes is really your strongest suit to play here. In fact, it seems outright foolish.” Apparently that’s the best you can do... I will ask you again, are you prepared to go on record saying that the gay relationship is not valuable enough to have its own definition?

“Your opinion does not carry the weight of law, the court's does.
It will be upheld, because the legal reasoning is sound.” It won’t because it imposes on religious liberty, and what you call “sound reasoning” is truly religious persecution.

"The ALJ, however, blah blah... The act of preparing a cake is simply not “speech” warranting First Amendment protection."” So tell me in your opinion... Just you... What does the wedding cake for a gay couple have any meaning at all?
“Can you cite an article that would support this assumption?” I thought you read this? Yes. Finding of Fact 6. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...

“And, the baker's liberty way in no way threatened.” Yes because he is forced to support “gay marriage” by producing wedding cakes for gay couples.

“Not at all, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the baker. You share in the hypocrisy by rushing to his defense using his hypocritical stance. Congratulations, you're a bigot.” First, I am not rushing to the baker’s defense I am standing for the individual religious and otherwise freedoms we all have as Americans. Second, hypocrisy is a human condition of all people, which is why we need Jesus. Lastly, you say I’m the bigot as you pass judgment on a baker who is well within his rights as an American.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1456 Mar 3, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Not under any reasonable definition.
<quoted text>
It's the exact same concept. A product is sold and later used by the customer during an event the seller objects to.
<quoted text>
Why can't you tell me the difference between my analogies and the baker example?
<quoted text>
A cake isn't designed to do anything other than look nice and be eaten.
“Not under any reasonable definition.” Gays don’t fall within the definition of marriage and that NOT a religious statement.

“It's the exact same concept. A product is sold and later used by the customer during an event the seller objects to.” A hamburger is not the same or equal to a wedding cake. The baker was willing to sell anything else but the wedding cake to the gay couple>

“Why can't you tell me the difference between my analogies and the baker example?” I can but apparently you can’t.

“A cake isn't designed to do anything other than look nice and be eaten.”...

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1457 Mar 3, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Your example was ridiculous and so is your whining.
You want to make discrimination based on religion legal. Stop lying. This is not about religious freedom it's a flagrant attempt to gain special rights fo0r people who want to practice religious bigotry and oppression.
You DARE claim people's religious rights are being denied when you have a State like Indiana that will jail people if they bless a SSM and you are SILENT about that.
You're a hypocrite.
Nuff said
“You want to make discrimination based on religion legal.

Stop lying. This is not about religious freedom it's a flagrant attempt to gain special rights fo0r people who want to practice religious bigotry and oppression.” You seem to be the one lying here, either that or you are projecting.

“You DARE claim people's religious rights are being denied when you have a State like Indiana that will jail people if they bless a SSM and you are SILENT about that.”

Since you won’t answer the other question let’s see if you can answer this one: There are two groups in the US, one believe that only traditional marriage works for society and the other group believes the definition of marriage needs to be changed to include gays. How can the two exist without either side losing rights to what they believe?

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 min KarlVIIIII 16,307
last post wins! (Feb '11) 1 hr Non _cents 25,072
106.7 kbpi is the worst morning show ever! 7 hr D derek 534
Play the "end of the word" game (Jul '11) Tue Non _cents 4,261
Police: Martino allegedly punched wife in face ... (Dec '13) Mar 2 Chilly 4
mexicans stealing luggage & bags at bus terminal Mar 2 Chilly 2
Local Denver Street Gang Gets Exposure! (Mar '10) Mar 2 NSM 267
Denver Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:25 pm PST

ESPN 1:25PM
What Will The Broncos Do With Extra Money?
NBC Sports 2:28 PM
Peyton can earn back his $4 million
ESPN 2:55 PM
Sources: Peyton agrees to take $4M pay cut
Yahoo! Sports 4:33 PM
Peyton Manning's pay cut not as much as Broncos first asked for
Yahoo! Sports 4:35 PM
Former player Nate Jackson calls for NFL to allow marijuana