Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 8,408

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

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1481 Mar 10, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
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.
The following is the law and from what I can tell, yes they do:

http://alicelaw.org/uploads/asset/bill_pdf/15...

“constitutional amendment prohibits them from being treated equally.” Because they fall outside the definition of marriage. Please explain how the gay relationship is the same or EQUAL to a husband and wife?


Please explain the “all the rights, protections and benefits of marriage,”also please explain HOW “They are second class citizenship at its most condescending.” and Cite your courses.....
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1482 Mar 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
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?
Why? It violates the federal constitution. It's not rocket science.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1483 Mar 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The following is the law and from what I can tell, yes they do:
http://alicelaw.org/uploads/asset/bill_pdf/15...
“constitutional amendment prohibits them from being treated equally.” Because they fall outside the definition of marriage. Please explain how the gay relationship is the same or EQUAL to a husband and wife?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1484 Mar 10, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? It violates the federal constitution. It's not rocket science.
You will need to explain that... Where in the Federal constitution does it say “government needs to redefine marriage to fit a gay couple?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1485 Mar 10, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So be very clear... Why then do you charge government to redefine marriage when it has never included same-sex couple in all of human history? Then explain how Colorado has it wrong when they define and apply the SAME rights the same-sex couples as that of husband and wife?

“No Tea for Me”

Since: Nov 13

Centennial, Co

#1486 Mar 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So be very clear... Why then do you charge government to redefine marriage when it has never included same-sex couple in all of human history? Then explain how Colorado has it wrong when they define and apply the SAME rights the same-sex couples as that of husband and wife?
HOMOsapians, not HETEROsapians

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1487 Mar 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I thought you said you read the court ruling?
I have real the ruling. The court found that the baker broke the law.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.
The baker's free exercise was never infringed, it was never even threatened.
Respect71 wrote:
On topix one has limited character space, and frankly you ramble on. If you take offence I can’t stop you.
Having limited space has no bearing upon attributing arguments to someone who never made them. It does speak volumes as to your character, or lack thereof, that you would do so.
Respect71 wrote:
You mean like the baker or a wedding photographer, or a jeweler who makes wedding rigs for husband and wife couples?
He doesn't have to marry someone of the same sex, and may still feel that doing so is immoral. he has no right to make decisions for others, or to force them to abide by his religious moral views.
Respect71 wrote:
You mean like baker or a wedding photographer, or a jeweler who makes wedding rigs for husband and wife couples?
In state's with anti discrimination laws including sexual orientation, they must also provide their services to same sex couples. Doing so in no way infringes upon religious freedom.
Respect71 wrote:
Show us how the baker accomplished this?
The baker denied service because the potential clients did not conform to his religious moral views. He broke the law.
Respect71 wrote:
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?
They have no more right to discriminate than the baker did. The difference is that they would likely understand that their business exists to generate a profit, not to make religious or political statements.
Respect71 wrote:
It is if a wedding cake is supporting “gay marriage” and not a husband and wife couple.
Sorry charlie, it's just baking a cake, it isn't an endorsement.
Respect71 wrote:
Please stay on topic.. Forcing a man to use his talents in support of an institution that goes against his beliefs in unconstitutional.
I am on topic, the subject is discrimination. It is no more justified just because the bigotry is rooted in religion.
Respect71 wrote:
Obviously he doesn’t have the rights to his beliefs because he’s being prosecuted for NOT supporting “gay marriage” with his tallents.
You aren't very bright, are you? The court addressed this very issue. The cake does not represent free speech, it is a product to be sold, and as such also does not constitute an endorsement of same sex marriage.
Respect71 wrote:
““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
And congress has not done so, and the baker is free to believe in the religion of his choosing, but may not project his religious beliefs onto potential customers by denying service to those who hold differing beliefs.

The reason your side keeps losing in court, is because they lack a valid and rational argument in defense of their position.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1488 Mar 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
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?
Because they are entitled, by the federal constitution, to equal protection of the laws. Separate but equal was dismissed as a legal notion over 60 years ago. The court found in Brown v Board of Education that "We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Have you come up with any way that denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to legally marry furthers any state interest that would render such a restriction constitutional?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1489 Mar 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
So be very clear... Why then do you charge government to redefine marriage when it has never included same-sex couple in all of human history? Then explain how Colorado has it wrong when they define and apply the SAME rights the same-sex couples as that of husband and wife?
Just because something has historical precedent, does not mean that it is right or just. At one time, there had always been slavery in the United States of America, Women had never been able to vote, schools had always been segregated, interracial marriage had never been allowed etc.

The constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union, and homosexuals are people, plain and simple.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1490 Mar 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You will need to explain that... Where in the Federal constitution does it say “government needs to redefine marriage to fit a gay couple?
It does so in the 14th Amendment where it instructs states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

Unless there is a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, such a restriction is unconstitutional.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1491 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You will need to explain that... Where in the Federal constitution does it say “government needs to redefine marriage to fit a gay couple?
Government is free to redefine any legal contract it oversees. It is also required to provide equal protection to all citizens, not just the citizens you like. Connect the dots.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#1492 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So be very clear... Why then do you charge government to redefine marriage when it has never included same-sex couple in all of human history?
Using a logical fallacy as support for an argument won't fly in court.

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age

Description of Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1.X is old or traditional
2.Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1493 Mar 11, 2014
KarlVIIIII wrote:
<quoted text>
HOMOsapians, not HETEROsapians
You lack thought.
Even science points to the societal benefits of husbands and wives. 

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1494 Mar 11, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>.
“I have real the ruling. The court found that the baker broke the law.”  Like I said a liberal Judge.
“The baker's free exercise was never infringed, it was never even threatened.”  To punish a man for refusing to use his talents to support of “gay marriage” absolutely infringed upon his right.
“Having limited space has no bearing upon attributing arguments to someone who never made them. It does speak volumes as to your character, or lack thereof, that you would do so.”  As does your reaction, but not a surprise as most like yourself are for the removal of liberty in favor of your agenda.
“He doesn't have to marry someone of the same sex, and may still feel that doing so is immoral. he has no right to make decisions for others, or to force them to abide by his religious moral views.”  All he is doing is choosing not to support “gay marriage” with his talents.
“In state's with anti discrimination laws including sexual orientation, they must also provide their services to same sex couples. Doing so in no way infringes upon religious freedom.”  I agree with you with the exception of products and services that deal with marriage.  It is wrong for government to force anyone (including a gay couple who would choose to only provide “gay wedding” cakes for only gay couples) to use their talents in support of something that can’t support or believe in.
“The baker denied service because the potential clients did not conform to his religious moral views. He broke the law.”  He literally did NOTHING to the gay couple. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
“They have no more right to discriminate than the baker did. The difference is that they would likely understand that their business exists to generate a profit, not to make religious or political statements.”  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”  They can refuse to haul anything if it goes against their belief and it’s not up to you or government to force them to do otherwise.
“Sorry charlie, it's just baking a cake, it isn't an endorsement.”  His wedding cake at a “gay wedding” is absolutely a government forced adornment and unconstitutional. 
“I am on topic, the subject is discrimination. It is no more justified just because the bigotry is rooted in religion.”  The subject is a wedding cake and a baked being forced by government to use his talents to support “gay marriage”  
 
“You aren't very bright, are you?”  Insults don’t change the facts. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” 
“The court addressed this very issue. The cake does not represent free speech, it is a product to be sold, and as such also does not constitute an endorsement of same sex marriage.”  Again the liberal judge is wrong, and if “gay marriage” does come to Colorado against the Colorado Constitutional Amendment,  then you will need to figure out how to let those who deal in the wedding industry have Liberty.
“And congress has not done so, and the baker is free to believe in the religion of his choosing, but may not project his religious beliefs onto potential customers by denying service to those who hold differing beliefs.”  Government is punishing him for his belief in traditional marriage by forcing him to use his talents in support of “gay marriage”.
&#8232;&#8232;“The reason your side keeps losing in court, is because they lack a valid and rational argument in defense of their position.”  It’s not the arguments it the bias of the judge.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1495 Mar 11, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they are entitled, by the federal constitution, to equal protection of the laws. Separate but equal was dismissed as a legal notion over 60 years ago. The court found in Brown v Board of Education that "We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."
Have you come up with any way that denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to legally marry furthers any state interest that would render such a restriction constitutional?
“Because they are entitled, by the federal constitution, to equal protection of the laws. Separate but equal was dismissed as a legal notion over 60 years ago. The court found in Brown v Board of Education that "We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."”  If you attend college for 5 years for a degree in History are you entitled to a surgeon's position at a hospital? Skin color is NOT sexual orientation.  Please explain how the gay relationship is the SAME or EQUAL to that of a husband and wife relationship.  Please do not wimp out and use the “all relationships are different” argument because you know what I am specifically asking.
&#8232;“Have you come up with any way that denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to legally marry furthers any state interest that would render such a restriction constitutional?”  Because the relationship falls outside the definition of marriage and it’s appropriate to clearly define that.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1496 Mar 11, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because something has historical precedent, does not mean that it is right or just. At one time, there had always been slavery in the United States of America, Women had never been able to vote, schools had always been segregated, interracial marriage had never been allowed etc.
The constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union, and homosexuals are people, plain and simple.
“Just because something has historical precedent, does not mean that it is right or just.”  In this case it does not only for religious but also societal stability.
“ At one time, there had always been slavery in the United States of America, Women had never been able to vote, schools had always been segregated, interracial marriage had never been allowed etc.”  None of those are the SAME as sexual orientation.

“The constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” Yes but that doesn’t mandate the State to redefine the institution of marriage.&#8232;&#8232 ;“Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union, and homosexuals are people, plain and simple.” They are people and if the choose to marry a person of opposite sex then marriage is available to them, however, if they choose a person of same-sex that is different and there are other options available to them.
 
“It does so in the 14th Amendment where it instructs states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” Explain how the gay relationship is the same or equal to that of a husband and wife?&#8232;&#8232;“Un less there is a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, such a restriction is unconstitutional.” Definition. Colorado has CLEAR definitions with the same rights for gay couples. Please explain again why activists are suing our State. 

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1497 Mar 11, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Government is free to redefine any legal contract it oversees. It is also required to provide equal protection to all citizens, not just the citizens you like. Connect the dots.
Not if it trample the First Amendment and the 14Th Amendment. Your dot remove liberties from individuals.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1498 Mar 11, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Using a logical fallacy as support for an argument won't fly in court.
Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age
Description of Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1.X is old or traditional
2.Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.
What I state are not arguments they are facts.
Another fact is states are redefining marriage to include gays as we speak, but that doesn’t change the fact they are gay and their “gay marriage” isn’t the SAME or EQUAL to that of a husband and wife. That said, the question is will you be willing to allow liberty for persons in the marriage industry to decide who they would like to provide goods and services to, just like churches, and support our Constitution?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1499 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You lack thought.
Even science points to the societal benefits of husbands and wives. 
Marriage results in increased stability, happiness, and a better environment for raising children.

All of these things also apply to same-sex couples.

Thank you for your pro-equality post.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1500 Mar 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage results in increased stability, happiness, and a better environment for raising children.
All of these things also apply to same-sex couples.
Thank you for your pro-equality post.
More facts... Gays can’t have children by nature, so thank you for pointing out more differences.

I am not on here opposing “gay marriage”. I want persons to be with whoever the desire to be with, but I am not going to pretend that the gay relationship is equal to that of a husband and wife.

Our State of Colorado doesn’t so why do you personally want government to force bakers to sell wedding cakes to gays and why do you want government to redefine marriage?

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
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 17 min Neandertroll 492
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 20 min tbird19482 15,210
last post wins! (Feb '11) 55 min mr goodwrench 24,933
Points in the Game (Jul '11) 1 hr mossy seaman 1,273
Legit supplier of m-a-rij-uauna,pain n anxiety ... 10 hr Local Denver 1
Young Girl Dies In Denver Shooting (Nov '07) 11 hr benchikh 35
Denver tar 13 hr LuvH 6
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 8:52 pm PST

NBC Sports 8:52PM
Report: Texans D-line coach Bill Kollar to join Gary Kubiak in Denver
NBC Sports 3:16 AM
Report: Broncos reach out to Wade Phillips with defensive coordinator needed
NBC Sports 4:09 AM
Bears add two more assistants
Bleacher Report 6:03 AM
Is Balance of Power Shifting in AFC West?
Bleacher Report 7:42 AM
Kubiak the Right Coach, with or Without Peyton