Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 17,468

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)

Read more

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1458 Mar 3, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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.”
Look what’s happened here in Colorado, and in New Mexico. Just because it hasn’t happened in AZ yet doesn’t mean it won’t. Obviously…

The media is failing our society badly. Calling a bill “Anti-Gay” when the words arn’t even contained within that bill.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1459 Mar 3, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
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.
Of course, before free exercise was addressed the founders first prevented congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Were you a little smarter, you would understand that the baker's religious freedom was never infringed, in fact it wasn't even threatened.

This suit has been settled the court ruled upon it, their ruling is sound, and it will withstand appeal. The only question is how stupid the baker is, and how much money they wish to throw away on appeals, which they have no hope of winning.

The baker's religious freedom is in no way infringed by providing a service to someone with different beliefs. Denying someone a service because they do not hold the same religious moral beliefs is, in essence, denying that person their free exercise and free speech.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1460 Mar 3, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, before free exercise was addressed the founders first prevented congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Were you a little smarter, you would understand that the baker's religious freedom was never infringed, in fact it wasn't even threatened.

This suit has been settled the court ruled upon it, their ruling is sound, and it will withstand appeal. The only question is how stupid the baker is, and how much money they wish to throw away on appeals, which they have no hope of winning.

The baker's religious freedom is in no way infringed by providing a service to someone with different beliefs. Denying someone a service because they do not hold the same religious moral beliefs is, in essence, denying that person their free exercise and free speech.
Marginalizing me like you and the court is doing to the baker doesn't change the fact the baker is being forced to use his talents to support "gay marriage" is still unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "... Any business that is associated with the wedding industry and is FORCED to serve "gay weddings" if their beliefs are traditional marriage is unconstitutional. Whether you like it or not.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1461 Mar 4, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Marginalizing me like you and the court is doing to the baker doesn't change the fact the baker is being forced to use his talents to support "gay marriage" is still unconstitutional.
They are merely being prevented from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The colorado found that cake baking is not free speech, and that baking a cake in no way violates the baker's free exercise.

You keep advancing arguments that have already been dismissed in a court of law.
As a general rule, when the Court has held religious-based conduct to be free
from regulation,“the conduct at issue in those cases was not prohibited by law,”
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 876; the freedom asserted did not bring the
appellees “into collision with rights asserted by any other individual,” Braunfeld v.
Brown, 366 U.S. at 604 (“It is such conflicts which most frequently require intervention
of the State to determine where the rights of one end and those of another begin”); and
the regulation did not involve an incidental burden upon a commercial activity. United
States v. Lee, 455 U.S. at 261 (“When followers of a particular sect enter into
commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as
a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes
which are binding on others in that activity.”)
Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is
distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to
legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law (§ 24-34-601. C.R.S.); it
adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the
marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate
regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that
barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free
exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple
due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a
biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that
argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, supra. "
Respect71 wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "...
This is exactly what I have been saying. The baker has no right to force others to conform to his religious standards, doing so violates the customer's free exercise.
Respect71 wrote:
Any business that is associated with the wedding industry and is FORCED to serve "gay weddings" if their beliefs are traditional marriage is unconstitutional. Whether you like it or not.
They are forced to do nothing. They are prevented from discrimination.

Should those business be able to turn away people of a different race, interracial couples, or those who worship religions the proprietor does not approve of? Of course not.

Your argument is lacking in a rational foundation. Feel free to explain, in detail, how providing such a service in any way infringes upon the religious freedom of the proprietor.

You cannot, because it would not.

“No Tea for Me”

Since: Nov 13

Centennial, Co

#1462 Mar 4, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>Your argument is lacking in a rational foundation. Feel free to explain, in detail, how providing such a service in any way infringes upon the religious freedom of the proprietor.
You cannot, because it would not.
If the "Baker" wants to bake cakes for people of his religious preference only then he cannot be in business to serve the PUBLIC

I do not know why this Respect gal finds this so hard to comprehend

If a Muslim couple wanted a cake for their wedding and he denied them due to their religious preference it would be no different than what he attempted to do with the homosexual couple

One cannot be in business to serve the PUBLIC then chose who he/she deems is preferential

“No Tea for Me”

Since: Nov 13

Centennial, Co

#1463 Mar 4, 2014
I'm opening a Kosher restaurant that will not serve un-circumscribed males because to not be circumcised is against my religious beliefs.

First of all who gives a rats a... what these folks do in their private lives

If you are in business to serve the public it is ALL-INCLUSIVE

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1464 Mar 5, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>onedents therefore have no valid claim that
barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free
exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple
due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a
biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that
argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, supra. "
<quoted text>
This is exactly what I have been saying. The baker has no right to force others to conform to his religious standards, doing so violates the customer's free exercise.
<quoted text>
They are forced to do nothing. They are prevented from discrimination.
Should those business be able to turn away people of a different race, interracial couples, or those who worship religions the proprietor does not approve of? Of course not.
Your argument is lacking in a rational foundation. Feel free to explain, in detail, how providing such a service in any way infringes upon the religious freedom of the proprietor.
You cannot, because it would not.
“They are merely being prevented from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” If that was the case, why would he sell them any of the other items in his shop?

“The colorado found that cake baking is not free speech, and that baking a cake in no way violates the baker's free exercise.” The jude is incorrect and hold a liberal bias like you.

“You keep advancing arguments that have already been dismissed in a court of law.
bla bla bla... " In Colorado the lgbt movement is now suing the State to change the definition of marriage when the State has a Constitutional amendment voted in that defines marriage, and has a law for civil unions. Why is that?
If and when the definition of marriage will change in Colorado you need to start thinking about the people who hold traditional marriage values and how you’re not going to enforce your liberal beliefs upon them like they already have towards this baker.

“This is exactly what I have been saying. The baker has no right to force others to conform to his religious standards, doing so violates the customer's free exercise.” The baker doesn’t want to be forced to support gay marriage by using his talents. The gay couples rights are intact.

“They are forced to do nothing. They are prevented from discrimination.

Should those business be able to turn away people of a different race, interracial couples, or those who worship religions the proprietor does not approve of? Of course not.” RACE isn’t the same and a “gay marriage”.

“Your argument is lacking in a rational foundation. Feel free to explain, in detail, how providing such a service in any way infringes upon the religious freedom of the proprietor.” I have repeatedly and because you don’t like the baker and what he stands for you ignore his Constitutional right.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1466 Mar 5, 2014
KarlVIIIII wrote:
I'm opening a Kosher restaurant that will not serve un-circumscribed males because to not be circumcised is against my religious beliefs.
First of all who gives a rats a... what these folks do in their private lives
If you are in business to serve the public it is ALL-INCLUSIVE
You lied about your “two degrees” didn’t you?

“No Tea for Me”

Since: Nov 13

Centennial, Co

#1467 Mar 5, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You lied about your “two degrees” didn’t you?
My degrees are in Political Science and Psychology

What does my higher education have to do with your intelligence deficit?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1468 Mar 5, 2014
KarlVIIIII wrote:
<quoted text>My degrees are in Political Science and Psychology

What does my higher education have to do with your intelligence deficit?
Read your statements. Tell us all you spent good money on your education.

You are obviously against Liberty, and in this case have the desire to punish a religious man for not supporting "gay marriage" with his talents.

“Groooovin'”

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#1469 Mar 5, 2014
AM quite SURE .This unfortunate Incident HAS BEEN RESOLVED by NOW!!

It happened in 2012!!!

“No Tea for Me”

Since: Nov 13

Centennial, Co

#1470 Mar 5, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Read your statements. Tell us all you spent good money on your education.
Again, what does my education have to do with your intelligence deficit?
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are obviously against Liberty, and in this case have the desire to punish a religious man for not supporting "gay marriage" with his talents.
Liberty has nothing to do with this "Baker" being a bigot. I have no "desire" to punish this "Baker" in any way shape or form. He however wanted to DENY a service based on his religious views.....That my friend is ILLEGAL

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1472 Mar 5, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“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?
Answer this question.

Why did you need to change marriage laws to make them one man one woman id marriage was always one man one woman?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1473 Mar 5, 2014
Petal Power wrote:
AM quite SURE .This unfortunate Incident HAS BEEN RESOLVED by NOW!!
It happened in 2012!!!
It has. The Baker was found guilty of violating the Public Accommodations clause with regards to using religion as a basis to discriminate.

A point Respect seems to want to ignore

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1475 Mar 5, 2014
KarlVIIIII wrote:
<quoted text> Again, what does my education have to do with your intelligence deficit?
<quoted text>
Liberty has nothing to do with this "Baker" being a bigot. I have no "desire" to punish this "Baker" in any way shape or form. He however wanted to DENY a service based on his religious views.....That my friend is ILLEGAL
“Again, what does my education have to do with your intelligence deficit?” It has to do with yours.

“Liberty has nothing to do with this "Baker" being a bigot. I have no "desire" to punish this "Baker" in any way shape or form. He however wanted to DENY a service based on his religious views.....That my friend is ILLEGAL” No, it’s unconstitutional.

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

Punishing a man who believes a wedding cake created by his talents go to a husband and wife.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1476 Mar 5, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Answer this question.
Why did you need to change marriage laws to make them one man one woman id marriage was always one man one woman?
I didn’t change any laws... You question is unclear.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1477 Mar 9, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“They are merely being prevented from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” If that was the case, why would he sell them any of the other items in his shop?
Can you come up with a basis for denial of service other than because of sexual orientation, if not, he broke the law, plain and simple. You can't say he didn't just because he allegedly would sell them cookies.
Respect71 wrote:
““The colorado found that cake baking is not free speech, and that baking a cake in no way violates the baker's free exercise.” The jude is incorrect and hold a liberal bias like you.
No, the judge was right, and the baker broke the law.
Respect71 wrote:
““You keep advancing arguments that have already been dismissed in a court of law.
bla bla bla... " In Colorado the lgbt movement is now suing the State to change the definition of marriage when the State has a Constitutional amendment voted in that defines marriage, and has a law for civil unions. Why is that?If and when the definition of marriage will change in Colorado you need to start thinking about the people who hold traditional marriage values and how you’re not going to enforce your liberal beliefs upon them like they already have towards this baker.
It seems you have lost your namesake. Then you start including things in quotes that were not actually said, blah, blah, blah (spelling corrected), you lose credibility. Not that you had much to begin with.
The "people who hold traditional marriage values" will not be affected. They are still free to marry someone of the same sex. They are not free to remove the free will of a third party, of to make decisions for them.
You aren't allowed to project your religious moral values onto others, and part of the reason for that is because to do so is an infringement of religious freedom of the person you project them on.
Would you want to live under sharia law? Islam is the fastest growing religion, and using you logic, should Muslims ever become the majority in the US, they could enact their religion as law. Would you want that?
Respect71 wrote:
““This is exactly what I have been saying. The baker has no right to force others to conform to his religious standards, doing so violates the customer's free exercise.” The baker doesn’t want to be forced to support gay marriage by using his talents. The gay couples rights are intact.
Supplying a service is not supporting gay marriage. It is supplying a service.
Respect71 wrote:
““They are forced to do nothing. They are prevented from discrimination.
Should those business be able to turn away people of a different race, interracial couples, or those who worship religions the proprietor does not approve of? Of course not.” RACE isn’t the same and a “gay marriage”.
What about different religions, ages, sexes, etc. Discrimination is discrimination.
Respect71 wrote:
““Your argument is lacking in a rational foundation. Feel free to explain, in detail, how providing such a service in any way infringes upon the religious freedom of the proprietor.” I have repeatedly and because you don’t like the baker and what he stands for you ignore his Constitutional right.
Not at all. He still has the right to his beliefs, and providing a service to someone with different beliefs doesn't violate his free exercise. You have yet to illustrate ANY way in which it does, and the court has also illustrated the fallacy of your assertions.

Simply put, you are wrong.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1478 Mar 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>.
“Can you come up with a basis for denial of service other than because of sexual orientation, if not, he broke the law, plain and simple. You can't say he didn't just because he allegedly would sell them cookies.” I thought you said you read the court ruling?
“No, the judge was right, and the baker broke the law.”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” It’s obvious that the judge is liberal like yourself.
“It seems you have lost your namesake. Then you start including things in quotes that were not actually said, blah, blah, blah (spelling corrected), you lose credibility.” On topix one has limited character space, and frankly you ramble on. If you take offence I can’t stop you.
“ Not that you had much to begin with.
The "people who hold traditional marriage values" will not be affected.” You mean like the baker or a wedding photographer, or a jeweler who makes wedding rigs for husband and wife couples?
“They are still free to marry someone of the same sex. They are not free to remove the free will of a third party, of to make decisions for them.” You mean like baker or a wedding photographer, or a jeweler who makes wedding rigs for husband and wife couples?
“You aren't allowed to project your religious moral values onto others, and part of the reason for that is because to do so is an infringement of religious freedom of the person you project them on.” Show us how the baker accomplished this?
“Would you want to live under sharia law? Islam is the fastest growing religion, and using you logic, should Muslims ever become the majority in the US, they could enact their religion as law. Would you want that?” They will have to learn to live with Christians, gays, Jews, Traditional Navajo and so on because,“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Freedom is for ALL in America.
IF a company that sell alcohol tries to contract from a Muslim truck companie and they refuse them on religious beliefs is your desire to force them to or send them to jail and fine them?

“Supplying a service is not supporting gay marriage. It is supplying a service.” It is if a wedding cake is supporting “gay marriage” and not a husband and wife couple.

“What about different religions, ages, sexes, etc. Discrimination is discrimination.” Please stay on topic.. Forcing a man to use his talents in support of an institution that goes against his beliefs in unconstitutional.

“Not at all. He still has the right to his beliefs, and providing a service to someone with different beliefs doesn't violate his free exercise.” Obviously he doesn’t have the rights to his beliefs because he’s being prosecuted for NOT supporting “gay marriage” with his tallents.
“ You have yet to illustrate ANY way in which it does, and the court has also illustrated the fallacy of your assertions.

Simply put, you are wrong.”““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1479 Mar 10, 2014
Colorado has a State law that allows all the rights of tradition marriage to same sex couples. Now gay activists are filing law suits to redefine a Colorado Constitutional amendment to include gays within that definition. Why?

“Gay marriage” may come to Colorado but will gays be willing to allow those who believe in traditional marriage to exist without forcing gay values upon traditional family values?

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1480 Mar 10, 2014
Colorado's creation of so-called civil unions, do not confer all the rights, protections and benefits of marriage, merely some of them, because that constitutional amendment prohibits them from being treated equally. They are second class citizenship at its most condescending.

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 tbird19482 16,887
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 26 min Reverend Alan 1,438
News Kathy Sabine (Sep '07) 18 hr Ravenite Coffee 33
News Colorado commission examining health-care costs... Wed Elise Gingerich 1
News Denver police fatally shoot teen girl suspect; ... Tue Archie Bunker 9
noiram annette marion license plate involved i... Mar 24 ANNETTE CRIMINAL 1
106.7 kbpi is the worst morning show ever! Mar 23 lol 540
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 ]