Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 6,131

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

#1501 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Like I said a liberal Judge.
If all you can do is accuse the judge of being liberal, you have no argument.
Respect71 wrote:
To punish a man for refusing to use his talents to support of “gay marriage” absolutely infringed upon his right.
He's not being punished. he is being prevented from discrimination.
Respect71 wrote:
As does your reaction, but not a surprise as most like yourself are for the removal of liberty in favor of your agenda.
There is no right to discriminate or deny service on the basis of a potential client's beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
All he is doing is choosing not to support “gay marriage” with his talents.
No, he is denying service on the basis of sexuality, which is illegal in Colorado.
Respect71 wrote:
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 has no interest in what the product or service is used for, that is none of his business.
Respect71 wrote:
He literally did NOTHING to the gay couple.
He denies them service. That is doing something.
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
How was his free exercise prohibited. Be specific.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.
You keep parroting this, but don't seem to understand what it means. They cannot force clients to abide by their religious moral views in order to obtain service. to do so infringes upon the free exercise of the client.
Respect71 wrote:
His wedding cake at a “gay wedding” is absolutely a government forced adornment and unconstitutional. 
No, it isn't. The court addressed this argument directly, and correctly rebutted it.
Respect71 wrote:
The subject is a wedding cake and a baked being forced by government to use his talents to support “gay marriage”  
No, he is being prevented from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Respect71 wrote:
Insults don’t change the facts.
Nor does it change the fact that you have presented no facts, only opinion.
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
You still don't appear to understand what this means.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
Is that the best you can do? The judge was liberal? You don't seem to have a valid argument in defense of your position.
Respect71 wrote:
Government is punishing him for his belief in traditional marriage by forcing him to use his talents in support of “gay marriage”.
No, they are addressing the fact that he broke the law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s not the arguments it the bias of the judge.
Think about what you have just said for a moment. There have been numerous cases where businesses have discriminated against homosexuals, been sued, and lost. These cases have been tried in different states, by different judges, with different backgrounds, yet they all keep arriving at the same conclusion, which would tend to indicate that your theory of judicial bias is incorrect.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1502 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
If you attend college for 5 years for a degree in History are you entitled to a surgeon's position at a hospital?

How, do you suppose, this question is relevant?
Of course, one would not be entitled to a position that they were insufficiently educated to perform.
Education and job placement have nothing to do with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Respect71 wrote:
Skin color is NOT sexual orientation.
I never said it was. I did say that separate is inherently not equal.
Respect71 wrote:
Please explain how the gay relationship is the SAME or EQUAL to that of a husband and wife relationship.
Physical equality is not required in order to achieve equal protection of the law. No two marriages are physically equal. Some couples might be athletic, while others are not. some are fertile, while others are barren. Every marriage is unique and distinct, and few will be physically equal, but that has no impact upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws for all people.
Respect71 wrote:
Please do not wimp out and use the “all relationships are different” argument because you know what I am specifically asking.
I know that your assertion is utterly irrelevant. As for what you are specifically asking, specifically ask the question. If you are referring to the ability to procreate, it is irrelevant to the legal protections of marriage. A couple need neither be able to procreate, or have any intention of doing so to legally marry, and the state regularly allows opposite sex couples who are infertile the right to legally marry.
Respect71 wrote:
Because the relationship falls outside the definition of marriage and it’s appropriate to clearly define that.
That is not a state interest, it is a talking point.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1503 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
In this case it does not only for religious but also societal stability.
BS. Allowing same sex couples to legally marry actually promotes greater societal stability. If you were really arguing for societal stability you would be fighting divorce, not same sex marriage.
Respect71 wrote:
None of those are the SAME as sexual orientation.
All are examples of unwarranted discrimination.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
You have yet to offer that elusive state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Respect71 wrote:
Explain how the gay relationship is the same or equal to that of a husband and wife?
They are people, and as such are equal.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
T. Jefferson
Respect71 wrote:
Definition. Colorado has CLEAR definitions with the same rights for gay couples. Please explain again why activists are suing our State.
Of course, civil unions do not provide equal protection of the law that marriage would provide. That is why you are being sued. Separate is inherently not equal.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1504 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
More facts... Gays can’t have children by nature, so thank you for pointing out more differences.
That has nothing to do with marriage.

The benefit of marriage is a better situation for raising children. That applies to couples who have children naturally, couples who have children from artificial means, couples who adopt, and couples who have children from previous relationships.
Respect71 wrote:
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?
For the first question, I oppose unjust discrimination.
For the second, to further equality.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1505 Mar 11, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>.
“If all you can do is accuse the judge of being liberal, you have no argument.”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Government FORCING people to use their talents in favor of the institution of “gay Marriage” is not Constitutional.

“He's not being punished. he is being prevented from discrimination.” Fines and jail are punishment and it’s because he did NOTHING to the gay couple.

“There is no right to discriminate or deny service on the basis of a potential client's beliefs.” It’s his belief not the client’s belief.

“No, he is denying service on the basis of sexuality, which is illegal in Colorado.” He’s denying service based on the institution of marriage.“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”“The baker has no interest in what the product or service is used for, that is none of his business.” He does because it has to do with the institution of marriage.
“He denies them service. That is doing something.” I’ll remind you again. He would have sold them ANYTHING ELSE in his shop, the wedding cake was the exception because of what marriage is to the baker.

“How was his free exercise prohibited. Be specific.” Seriously? Traditional marriage is a value many people hold (religious or not), and in this case he feels his talent is being hijacked in favor of “gay marriage” which is an institution he does not believe in. The next step after this is forcing churches to provide ceremonies for gays, which is again, unconstitutional.

“You keep parroting this, but don't seem to understand what it means. They cannot force clients to abide by their religious moral views in order to obtain service. to do so infringes upon the free exercise of the client.” I understand our 1st Amendment, but apparently you don’t... He forced nothing, and in fact did nothing to the client. You, the gay couple, and government are forcing your view of marriage on him. That’s what break the first amendment.

“No, it isn't. The court addressed this argument directly, and correctly rebutted it.” Liberal judge.

“No, he is being prevented from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” So skewed the court and you... But as we continue to hear from the baker and his lawyer, it seems more and more to be activist bullying and unconstitutional.

“Nor does it change the fact that you have presented no facts, only opinion.”‘“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and your little link to the facts of the case. But whatever right?!

“You still don't appear to understand what this means.” Better than you apparently and that’s because I believe in liberty for ALL Americans and you have an agenda you desire to push upon Americans.

“Is that the best you can do? The judge was liberal? You don't seem to have a valid argument in defense of your position.”‘“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and the fact that you have an agenda is a pretty good argument.

“No, they are addressing the fact that he broke the law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.” Read above over and over.

“Think about what you have just said for a moment. There have been numerous cases where businesses have discriminated against homosexuals, been sued, and lost. These cases have been tried in different states, by different judges, with different backgrounds, yet they all keep arriving at the same conclusion, which would tend to indicate that your theory of judicial bias is incorrect.”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and your little link to the facts of the case warrant further review in higher courts.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1506 Mar 11, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
“How, do you suppose, this question is relevant?” About as relevant as slavery and woman voting.
“Physical equality is not required in order to achieve equal protection of the law. No two marriages are physically equal. Some couples might be athletic, while others are not. some are fertile, while others are barren. Every marriage is unique and distinct, and few will be physically equal, but that has no impact upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws for all people.” Always a predicable dodge... In general, the gay relationship dose NOT fit the definition of marriage. The fact that you desire government intervention and to punish makers of wedding cakes if proof positive.

“I know that your assertion is utterly irrelevant.” You know that its relevance is absolute and even if “gay marriage” is made law in all 50 States it will still be “gay marriage” and will be absent a husband or wife.

“As for what you are specifically asking, specifically ask the question. If you are referring to the ability to procreate, it is irrelevant to the legal protections of marriage. A couple need neither be able to procreate, or have any intention of doing so to legally marry, and the state regularly allows opposite sex couples who are infertile the right to legally marry.” So you admit you can’t explain how the gay relationship is the SAME or EQUAL to a husband and wife... Kind of poke a hole in “marriage equality”

“That is not a state interest, it is a talking point.” It’s fact.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1507 Mar 11, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>l.
“BS. Allowing same sex couples to legally marry actually promotes greater societal stability. If you were really arguing for societal stability you would be fighting divorce, not same sex marriage.” The sexual revolution and women’s lib took a HUGE toll on marriage, and that is in fact a much worse an impact than “gay marriage”. You do understand I am for gays being with who they want and I absolutely want them to have easy access to the same rights married couples do, but I am not willing to be dishonest about the institutions. The gay relationship is very different from that of a husband and wife and deserves proper definition.

“All are examples of unwarranted discrimination.” Right... Not the same.

“You have yet to offer that elusive state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional.” Definition... You can’t look at it objectively because your gay agenda is in the way.

“They are people, and as such are equal.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Jefferson” Amen. That dose not instruct, however, government to force a new definition of marriage upon its people.

“Of course, civil unions do not provide equal protection of the law that marriage would provide. That is why you are being sued. Separate is inherently not equal.” Explain better, because as I read the law all the rights of marriage are provided to the gay couple, therefore is equal and done so with proper definitions.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1508 Mar 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That has nothing to do with marriage.
The benefit of marriage is a better situation for raising children. That applies to couples who have children naturally, couples who have children from artificial means, couples who adopt, and couples who have children from previous relationships.
<quoted text>
For the first question, I oppose unjust discrimination.
For the second, to further equality.
“That has nothing to do with marriage.” Then why would you bring it up?

“The benefit of marriage is a better situation for raising children. That applies to couples who have children naturally, couples who have children from artificial means, couples who adopt, and couples who have children from previous relationships.” Agreed.

“For the first question, I oppose unjust discrimination.” You need to re-read through this thread...
“For the second, to further equality.” The gay relationship is not equal.“Marriage equality” is a lie. Colorado has a very good thing going benefiting all her citizens and allowing (with exemption of this baker) rights intact.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1509 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“That has nothing to do with marriage.” Then why would you bring it up?
I didn't.

I stated that a household led by married parents is better for children. I didn't say anything specific to natural reproduction, which is only one method by which kids may enter a household.
Respect71 wrote:
“For the first question, I oppose unjust discrimination.” You need to re-read through this thread...
I've read it. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is just as bad as discrimination based on gender or race or religion. All should be prohibited.
Respect71 wrote:
“For the second, to further equality.” The gay relationship is not equal.“Marriage equality” is a lie.
It is equal. A couple consisting of two people of the same sex can fulfill *every* requirement of marriage.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1510 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
That dose not instruct, however, government to force a new definition of marriage upon its people.
Your terminology ("force...upon its people") implies that people are being harmed in some way. They're not.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1511 Mar 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't.

I stated that a household led by married parents is better for children. I didn't say anything specific to natural reproduction, which is only one method by which kids may enter a household.

Respect71 wrote, "
“For the first question, I oppose unjust discrimination.” You need to re-read through this thread...
"

I've read it. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is just as bad as discrimination based on gender or race or religion. All should be prohibited.

Respect71 wrote, "
“For the second, to further equality.” The gay relationship is not equal.“Marriage equality” is a lie.
"

It is equal. A couple consisting of two people of the same sex can fulfill *every* requirement of marriage.
Okay.

The government is punishing the baker for using his talents to support "gay marriage". The facts in the case show he was willing to sell them anything else.

Marriage has a husband and wife. When you cal it equal and ask government to change the definition you are being very dishonest in calling it EQUAL.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1512 Mar 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Your terminology ("force...upon its people") implies that people are being harmed in some way. They're not.
Then you tell us how do we allow for people to believe traditional marriage and still have "gay marriage" without either side getting punished?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1513 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay.
The government is punishing the baker for using his talents to support "gay marriage". The facts in the case show he was willing to sell them anything else.
The government is punishing the baker for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

He has a product for sale: wedding cake. He will sell that product to a straight couple. He will not sell that product to a gay couple. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Respect71 wrote:
Marriage has a husband and wife.
Or two husbands. Or two wives. Or one man and many wives. Marriage takes a variety of forms. You cannot simply declare only ONE form to be the official definition.
Respect71 wrote:
When you cal it equal and ask government to change the definition you are being very dishonest in calling it EQUAL.
I'm not being dishonest at all. The existing definition is unequal. The changed definition would be equal.

Every argument you're making could be made in opposition of interracial marriage.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1514 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you tell us how do we allow for people to believe traditional marriage and still have "gay marriage" without either side getting punished?
Your side isn't being punished in any way.

It's not "punishment" just because you can't force your beliefs on other people and inhibit their choices.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1515 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
You keep repeating this ad naseum, but don’t really seem to understand it. How would providing a wedding cake for a same sex couple violate the baker’s religious freedom? Be specific.
Respect71 wrote:
Government FORCING people to use their talents in favor of the institution of “gay Marriage” is not Constitutional.
They aren’t. They are preventing him from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which in no way impacts his freedom to exercise the religion of his choosing. It does prevent him from projecting his religious beliefs onto others in violation of their religious freedom.
[QUOTE who="Respect71Fines and jail are punishment and it’s because he did NOTHING to the gay couple.[/QUOTE]
He has neither been fined nor jailed.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s his belief not the client’s belief.
They believe differently than he does, which is their right. By denying them service because they believe differently he is violating their free exercise of religion. He is also breaking the law of the state of Colorado. It’s funny how your side rushes to defend someone who broke the law.
[QUOTE who="Respect71]He’s denying service based on the institution of marriage.[/QUOTE]
He doesn’t have that right.
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

There you go again, have you learned it’s meaning yet? Have you come up with a way in which providing a cake to a gay couple subverts religious freedom?
Respect71 wrote:
He does because it has to do with the institution of marriage.
That is not his concern. They didn’t ask him to perform the ceremony, or even participate, they asked him to bake a cake.
Respect71 wrote:
I’ll remind you again. He would have sold them ANYTHING ELSE in his shop, the wedding cake was the exception because of what marriage is to the baker.
Of course, you have never supported this assertion with evidence that would prove it was true. Mere repetition does not make a statement factual. Even if this were true, it doesn’t help your case. The proprietor does not get to decide which goods or services they will make available to which clients.
Respect71 wrote:
Seriously? Traditional marriage is a value many people hold (religious or not), and in this case he feels his talent is being hijacked in favor of “gay marriage” which is an institution he does not believe in. The next step after this is forcing churches to provide ceremonies for gays, which is again, unconstitutional.
The court clearly held that you are wrong, and that making a cake is neither speech, nor is it an endorsement of the event where it will be consumed. Do you ever stop to think how ridiculous the arguments you are presenting make you sound?
Respect71 wrote:
I understand our 1st Amendment, but apparently you don’t... He forced nothing, and in fact did nothing to the client. You, the gay couple, and government are forcing your view of marriage on him. That’s what break the first amendment.
He denies them service. That is not doing nothing, and it is in violation of Colorado law.
Respect71 wrote:
Liberal judge.
Several other judges trying similar cases have reached the same conclusion. It is at best disingenuous to suggest that all of them were merely liberal judges engaging in judicial activism. The fact that you make such an oversimplified argument implies that you are not up to offering a rational or logical argument in favor of your position.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1516 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
So skewed the court and you... But as we continue to hear from the baker and his lawyer, it seems more and more to be activist bullying and unconstitutional.
No, it seems like the proper upholding of the Colorado statute. The baker will continue to lose should they decide to appeal. That they denied service is without question, as is the fact that they did so on the basis of sexual orientation. They broke the law.
Respect71 wrote:
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and your little link to the facts of the case. But whatever right?!
Still parroting, eh?
Providing the cake would in no way impact the baker’s religious freedom.
Respect71 wrote:
Better than you apparently and that’s because I believe in liberty for ALL Americans and you have an agenda you desire to push upon Americans.
Funny, the baker was the one pushing something onto someone else. The couple in question merely wished to retain his services and pay for them.
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and the fact that you have an agenda is a pretty good argument.
I have no agenda other than to support the Constitutional guarantee of equality under the law for all.
Respect71 wrote:
Read above over and over.
I have, and I understand it, whereas you do not.
How would providing a cake for a gay couple violate the baker’s free exercise of religion?
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and your little link to the facts of the case warrant further review in higher courts.
It’s so cute that you keep posting that when you don’t know what to say. If the baker decides to appeal, they will lose. That they broke the law is without question.
Respect71 wrote:
About as relevant as slavery and woman voting.
Those are relevant. Each is an example where a class was discriminated against in the past, and the law has changed to end the discrimination. Face it, kiddo, baking a cake for a gay couple doesn’t violate the baker’s religious freedom.
Respect71 wrote:
Always a predicable dodge... In general, the gay relationship dose NOT fit the definition of marriage. The fact that you desire government intervention and to punish makers of wedding cakes if proof positive.
Of course, it isn’t a dodge, it is a direct answer to your question. Equality under the law does not require physical equality. At question is whether the existing, one man one woman, definition is constitutional. You seem to lack the ability to offer any state interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional.
Respect71 wrote:
You know that its relevance is absolute and even if “gay marriage” is made law in all 50 States it will still be “gay marriage” and will be absent a husband or wife.
But it will secure equality under the law.
Respect71 wrote:
So you admit you can’t explain how the gay relationship is the SAME or EQUAL to a husband and wife... Kind of poke a hole in “marriage equality”
No, it doesn’t. Physical equality is not necessary to provide equality under the law. If you don’t understand that, then perhaps you should go back to elementary school?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1517 Mar 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
It’s fact.
It is your opinion, nothing more.
Respect71 wrote:
The sexual revolution and women’s lib took a HUGE toll on marriage, and that is in fact a much worse an impact than “gay marriage”. You do understand I am for gays being with who they want and I absolutely want them to have easy access to the same rights married couples do, but I am not willing to be dishonest about the institutions. The gay relationship is very different from that of a husband and wife and deserves proper definition. Right... Not the same.
Sorry kiddo, that doesn’t rise to the level of a state interest. You seem to suffer from the delusion that the legal protections of marriage, as overseen by the state in civil marriage, and the religious institution of marriage are intrinsically linked. They are not, they are two completely separate entities.
Respect71 wrote:
Definition... You can’t look at it objectively because your gay agenda is in the way.
I am not the one who is failing to be objective. You are clinging to a definition that excludes some Americans from equality under the law, but lack the ability to articulate a state interest served by such restrictions that would render them constitutional. Time to grow up, kiddo.
Tell me, how does allowing same sex marriage in any way impact you or your rights?
Respect71 wrote:
Amen. That dose not instruct, however, government to force a new definition of marriage upon its people.
They aren’t. The government in this case is only intervening because the baker broke the law. He need not accept gay marriage, or even think that it is right or moral, but he doesn’t have the right to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation.
Respect71 wrote:
Explain better, because as I read the law all the rights of marriage are provided to the gay couple, therefore is equal and done so with proper definitions.
Sorry, kiddo. While civil unions do secure certain rights and protections, they stop far short of extending the full legal rights and protections of legal marriage.

You don't seem to have a firm grasp of the law, or the US Constitution. Just as you seem to lack the ability to specifically articulate how providing a service for a same sex couple violates the baker's free exercise of religion. If one were to strictly apply your logic, he should also deny service for remarriages, to divorced people, anyone who eats bacon or shellfish, adulterers, or to conduct business with women when it is that time of the month.

The baker's free exercise was never in threat. he overreacted, he attempted to project his religious moral views onto his would-be clients, and in so doing, violated the laws of the Great State of Colorado. When one breaks the law, they should expect to be punished. When one wishes to defend religious freedom, they might select a case where the person in question had not broken the law.

Get help.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1518 Mar 11, 2014
lides wrote:
Tell me, how does allowing same sex marriage in any way impact you or your rights?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1519 Mar 11, 2014
Wondering wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =0vFw9srakt8XX
Hmmm, citing court cases that your side lost again, Wondering?

When individuals, like the Parkers, fail to draw any correlation between allowing same sex marriage and the wrongs they perceive (because heaven forfend that schools be able to teach children that they must treat even people who are different with respect and dignity), it doesn't make those on your side of the argument look terribly smart.

When idiots, like yourself, continually cite court cases that your side lost in making your argument you look down-right stupid.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1520 Mar 11, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =0vFw9srakt8XX
Knowing that something exists impacts your 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) 23 min OkayThen 14,400
last post wins! (Feb '11) 2 hr Breezy _Soul 24,873
drugs and dealers Fri Reyna lokita 2
Denver tar? (Aug '11) Fri Reyna lokita 6
Housewife convicted of frying husband (Mar '07) Fri DILF 69
good strip clubs? Thu mmmm 1
Nude photos of 12-year-old girl circulated via ... (Feb '10) Thu Paula 311
Denver Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:01 pm PST

Yahoo! Sports 2:01PM
Chiefs quarterback Smith out with lacerated spleen
Yahoo! Sports 4:37 PM
Chargers RB Mathews out against Chiefs
Bleacher Report 6:17 PM
Smith Injury Gives Chiefs Gauge of QB's Value
Bleacher Report11:44 PM
Denver Broncos: Why the Run Defense Isn't a Concern
NFL 6:52 AM
Bolts not taking Chase Daniel lightly in bout with Chiefs