Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Denver Post

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)

Comments
1,321 - 1,340 of 2,874 Comments Last updated 19 min ago

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1540
Apr 7, 2014
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
That argument was made by the plaintiffs and dismissed by the court.
<quoted text>
Yes. The state has the right to prevent discrimination based on any number of criterion including sexual orientation.
<quoted text>
Yes, I do. Do you understand that as yet the baker has not been punished in any way, he has merely been found guilty of violating the state law against discrimination?
<quoted text>
That is a matter of free speech. The baker provides a service, and the court also addressed the fact that baking a cake, while requiring skill, did not rise to the level of free speech.
<quoted text>
He choose to open a bakery. He chose to offer wedding cakes. The state is merely preventing him from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Doing so, the court has rightly illustrated, violated neither the baker's free speech or free exercise of religion.
<quoted text>
I am not denying anything. The facts are the facts. The baker denied service to the gay couple in violation of the state law. If one breaks the law, they should anticipate that the state will act accordingly.
<quoted text>
I'm not the fool arguing that cake is speech.
<quoted text>
Providing the service in no way violates the free exercise of religion or free speech of the baker. He denied service not to preserve his own rights, but rather to project his moral views onto the potential clients. He does not have that right.
<quoted text>
Some of us already do see.
“That argument was made by the plaintiffs and dismissed by the court.” So therefore what?
“Yes. The state has the right to prevent discrimination based on any number of criterion including sexual orientation.” Not if it infringes on individual liberty.

“Yes, I do. Do you understand that as yet the baker has not been punished in any way, he has merely been found guilty of violating the state law against discrimination?” And you understand he is willing to sell ANYTHING to them with the exception of a wedding cake.

“That is a matter of free speech. The baker provides a service, and the court also addressed the fact that baking a cake, while requiring skill, did not rise to the level of free speech.” Using his talents to support something he doesn’t believe in is unconstitutional. Will you support gay baker who is asked to print “Marriage ins ONLY for a Husband and Wife” on a wedding cake?

“He choose to open a bakery. He chose to offer wedding cakes. The state is merely preventing him from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Doing so, the court has rightly illustrated, violated neither the baker's free speech or free exercise of religion.” He is choosing NOT to support “gay marriage” not discriminate against gays.

“I am not denying anything. The facts are the facts. The baker denied service to the gay couple in violation of the state law. If one breaks the law, they should anticipate that the state will act accordingly.” He only denied a wedding cake not service.

“I'm not the fool arguing that cake is speech.” You are the one arguing it’s okay for government to force an individual to do something he doesn’t believe in.

“Providing the service in no way violates the free exercise of religion or free speech of the baker. He denied service not to preserve his own rights, but rather to project his moral views onto the potential clients. He does not have that right.” So then you would support punishing the gay baker who will refuse to print “marriage is ONLY for a husband and wife” on a wedding cake for a man-woman couple. Good to know.

“Some of us already do see.” As more and more individual right are infringed to force people to believe gay marriage, then laws will be changed and removed, especially if government makes laws to endorse and redefine marriage to include gays.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1541
Apr 7, 2014
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Spousal privilege, for starters. The law has long acknowledged the reality that separate is inherently unequal. Get over it.
<quoted text>
Funny, you are the one who seems to think that the baker is being persecuted when in fact they broke the law.
This isn't rocket science, kiddo.
<quoted text>
This actually is just extrapolating a simple concept. Free exercise of religion allows us to make our own religious choices. You seem to suffer from the delusion that this includes projecting our religious moral views onto others by denying them service if they do not conform to our religious views. It is only logical that, in such a scenario, that a devout Christian could deny service for any of the reasons I listed.
I can understand why you would find such a hypothetical scenario to be unsettling, because it illustrates just how silly the argument you are advancing really is.
“Spousal privilege, for starters. The law has long acknowledged the reality that separate is inherently unequal. Get over it.” What part of Colorado law doesn’t allow for “Spousal privilege” Cite please.

“Funny, you are the one who seems to think that the baker is being persecuted when in fact they broke the law.” I see nothing funny about individual rights removed and to force an individual to support, with his talents, something he doesn’t believe in.

“This actually is just extrapolating a simple concept. Free exercise of religion allows us to make our own religious choices. You seem to suffer from the delusion that this includes projecting our religious moral views onto others by denying them service if they do not conform to our religious views. It is only logical that, in such a scenario, that a devout Christian could deny service for any of the reasons I listed.

I can understand why you would find such a hypothetical scenario to be unsettling, because it illustrates just how silly the argument you are advancing really is.” So you failed.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1542
Apr 7, 2014
 
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The government is regulating businesses to prevent discriminatory behavior. He doesn't have to bake them a cake just like he doesn't have to clean his kitchen. But if he chooses not to do so, he can't operate.
It doesn't matter if he doesn't like gay people or if he loves cockroaches.
<quoted text>
You're the one denying history, Respect. Marriage as it currently exists in this country is a recent invention.
<quoted text>
Traditional marriage excludes gay couples. They are treated unequally.
<quoted text>
Yes, they can. I can argue that making a cake for an interracial couple violates my religious beliefs. I can argue that interracial marriage is not traditional.
“The government is regulating businesses to prevent discriminatory behavior. He doesn't have to bake them a cake just like he doesn't have to clean his kitchen. But if he chooses not to do so, he can't operate.

It doesn't matter if he doesn't like gay people or if he loves cockroaches.” Forcing an individual to use talents to support “gay marriage” is unconstitutiontional.

“You're the one denying history, Respect. Marriage as it currently exists in this country is a recent invention.” So therefore redefine it for what reason?

“Traditional marriage excludes gay couples. They are treated unequally.” That’s by nature, not definition.

“Yes, they can. I can argue that making a cake for an interracial couple violates my religious beliefs. I can argue that interracial marriage is not traditional.” You can but that would make you racist which isn’t the same as sexual orientation. I will ask you, if a intended husband and wife couple asked a gay baker to write the words “marriage is ONLY for a husband and wife” would you agree that baker needs to bake it for them the way they specified?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1543
Apr 7, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Respect71 wrote:
Not if it infringes on individual liberty.
Simply put, it doesn't. The baker's rights were in no way infringed, a fact proven by your consistent inability to articulate any such infraction.
Respect71 wrote:
And you understand he is willing to sell ANYTHING to them with the exception of a wedding cake.
I understand that he said that. He has not demonstrated that it is true. Truth be told, this actually makes your argument weaker. Limiting only one product that he will sell them does not strengthen his argument, it merely deepens his bigotry. Why is it any less Christian to sell them cupcakes or brownies if he finds them or their actions so objectionable?
Respect71 wrote:
Using his talents to support something he doesn’t believe in is unconstitutional. Will you support gay baker who is asked to print “Marriage ins ONLY for a Husband and Wife” on a wedding cake?
Actually, it's not. Read the court decision. They deal with this issue quite directly.
Respect71 wrote:
He is choosing NOT to support “gay marriage” not discriminate against gays.
He is discriminating against gays. Providing a service for a same sex wedding is not supporting gays, any more than providing challah is supporting Judaism.
Respect71 wrote:
He only denied a wedding cake not service.
Baking the cake was the service, you twit.
Respect71 wrote:
You are the one arguing it’s okay for government to force an individual to do something he doesn’t believe in.
It's called running a business, kiddo. You will end up serving some people you disagree with. If one is smart, you provide the service and take their money, that's what the game is all about.
Respect71 wrote:
So then you would support punishing the gay baker who will refuse to print “marriage is ONLY for a husband and wife” on a wedding cake for a man-woman couple. Good to know.
Personally, if I were that baker, would make the cake and charge a premium. Do you see how that worked?
Respect71 wrote:
As more and more individual right are infringed to force people to believe gay marriage, then laws will be changed and removed, especially if government makes laws to endorse and redefine marriage to include gays.
Problem is, kiddo, no rights were infringed here. Arguably, the baker refusing service was an infringement of the religious freedom of the customer, as the baker was essentially forcing them to conform to his religious beliefs in order to secure service.

At the end of the day, he did a dumb thing, and he broke the laws of the state, plain and simple.
Respect71 wrote:
What part of Colorado law doesn’t allow for “Spousal privilege” Cite please.
Civil unions do not provide legal spousal privilege against testimony against a spouse in court.
Respect71 wrote:
I see nothing funny about individual rights removed and to force an individual to support, with his talents, something he doesn’t believe in.
Respect, then I suggest you don't open a place of public accommodation in Colorado, because you won't be able to adequately express your bigotry.
Respect71 wrote:
So you failed.
Not at all, I illustrated the insanity of your position. I can hardly be held accountable for the fact that you are too dim to see that.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1544
Apr 7, 2014
 
Respect71 wrote:
Forcing an individual to use talents to support “gay marriage” is unconstitutiontional.
He's not supporting gay marriage. He's baking and selling a cake. It is not unconstitutional for the government to regulate business practices.
Respect71 wrote:
So therefore redefine it for what reason?
Equality.
Respect71 wrote:
“Traditional marriage excludes gay couples. They are treated unequally.” That’s by nature, not definition.
No, that's by definition. There is no marriage in nature.
Respect71 wrote:
You can but that would make you racist which isn’t the same as sexual orientation.
What's the difference between treating people poorly because of their race and treating people poorly because of their sexual orientation?
Respect71 wrote:
I will ask you, if a intended husband and wife couple asked a gay baker to write the words “marriage is ONLY for a husband and wife” would you agree that baker needs to bake it for them the way they specified?
No. That is a question of content. Anti-discrimination laws do not relate to content. If the gay couple in Colorado had asked the baker for a cake that said "gay marriage is awesome", the baker could have refused and would NOT be breaking the law.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1545
Apr 7, 2014
 
Respect71 wrote:
It’s good to know you are willing to let the government prosecute the gay baker who is unwilling to print “Marriage is only between a Husband and Wife” on a wedding cake he/she is commissioned to bake by a intended husband and wife. And I can’t wait for the gay photographer to refuse the couple who wants to hold the sign in their photo stating “Husband and Wife ONLY equal Marriage”. You would be for prosecuting that photographer too, right?
Sweetie, you desperately need to work on the cogency of your hypotheticals, along with your ability to discuss anything actually in the posts you are claiming to respond to. There's always hope, but just not now. Anyways. Remember, the ONLY thing that the baker knew about the cake being ordered was that is was to be wedding cake for their reception, nothing else. He didn't give them the opportunity to order the rainbow "f*ck you Christian bigots" or the twelve tiers designed like a Hindu sex cult temple depicting great moments in homosex history and the topper designed to show them consummating their marriage while surrounded by a cheering crowd of boy scouts and altar boys. If all the baker or photographer knew was that they were baking a cake for or taking pictures of something only heterosexuals really should do, marrying someone of their opposite sex, they wouldn't enjoy the right to refuse their services on that basis . Even if it is their deeply held belief that God no longer blesses opposite sex marriages. Straight people have the right to be out shopping for cakes and photographs, just like homosexuals. As to your hypotheticals. Let me make it simple. It is OUR right to decide whether or not to conduct business with any place open in the marketplace. The photographer, the baker and the candlestick maker all enjoy the right to tell us how they feel about OUR requests of them, but it is OUR right to decide whether we still conduct business at that point, not theirs. If WE'RE going to operate a licensed business designated as a public accommodation, WE'RE going to have to operate it under many limitations on OUR rights to do what WE damn well please with it. This is one of them. If WE'RE photographers or bakers or sex shop proprietors and want to be bigots, there is a limit to that right and it's found at the customer's right to decide whether they are going to stay business that is by right, still open to them, no matter how WE feel on the subject. OUR beliefs are OUR problem, not OUR customer's. WE'RE open to the public and they're, by right and law, part of that public, whether WE like it or not.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1546
Apr 7, 2014
 
lides wrote:
Are they back on that again? I, for one, find it hysterical that Wondering so regularly cites the Parker's case in spite of the fact that a) they lost, and b) they were given leave to refile in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (having failed to mount a federal case), and yet never did so.
They look utterly inept when they continually cite cases they lost.
You know how conservatives think, they like to harken back to the "good old days" before reality changed. Pietro the Wondering likes to harken back to the "good old days" when he still had hope that the Parkers had a case.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1547
Apr 7, 2014
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, you desperately need to work on the cogency of your hypotheticals, along with your ability to discuss anything actually in the posts you are claiming to respond to. There's always hope, but just not now. Anyways. Remember, the ONLY thing that the baker knew about the cake being ordered was that is was to be wedding cake for their reception, nothing else. He didn't give them the opportunity to order the rainbow "f*ck you Christian bigots" or the twelve tiers designed like a Hindu sex cult temple depicting great moments in homosex history and the topper designed to show them consummating their marriage while surrounded by a cheering crowd of boy scouts and altar boys. If all the baker or photographer knew was that they were baking a cake for or taking pictures of something only heterosexuals really should do, marrying someone of their opposite sex, they wouldn't enjoy the right to refuse their services on that basis . Even if it is their deeply held belief that God no longer blesses opposite sex marriages. Straight people have the right to be out shopping for cakes and photographs, just like homosexuals. As to your hypotheticals. Let me make it simple. It is OUR right to decide whether or not to conduct business with any place open in the marketplace. The photographer, the baker and the candlestick maker all enjoy the right to tell us how they feel about OUR requests of them, but it is OUR right to decide whether we still conduct business at that point, not theirs. If WE'RE going to operate a licensed business designated as a public accommodation, WE'RE going to have to operate it under many limitations on OUR rights to do what WE damn well please with it. This is one of them. If WE'RE photographers or bakers or sex shop proprietors and want to be bigots, there is a limit to that right and it's found at the customer's right to decide whether they are going to stay business that is by right, still open to them, no matter how WE feel on the subject. OUR beliefs are OUR problem, not OUR customer's. WE'RE open to the public and they're, by right and law, part of that public, whether WE like it or not.
SCOTUS denied cert in Elaine Photography case:
http://equalityontrial.com/2014/04/07/breakin...

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1548
Apr 7, 2014
 
NorCal Native wrote:
SCOTUS denied cert in Elaine Photography case:
http://equalityontrial.com/2014/04/07/breakin...
Not surprised in the least by the outcome, but it would have been fun if they had taken it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1549
Apr 7, 2014
 
The lesson for the day is that the constitution doesn't grant any of us the right to to violate the right to equal protection of the law to those we pray God hates. The constitution protects them from us. Personally, I'm thankful for that.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1550
Apr 7, 2014
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Not surprised in the least by the outcome, but it would have been fun if they had taken it.
This should send a message to the florist in Washington and the bakers in both Oregon and Colorado......if they continue to lose at their state level.....give it up because it won't be good for them in the long run!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1551
Apr 7, 2014
 
NorCal Native wrote:
This should send a message to the florist in Washington and the bakers in both Oregon and Colorado......if they continue to lose at their state level.....give it up because it won't be good for them in the long run!!!
They're straight and they're Christian, two conditions that can make people slow learners.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1552
Apr 7, 2014
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>They're straight and they're Christian, two conditions that can make people slow learners.
Well, that's their issue then, isn't it? I'm pretty certain that Elaine ISN'T happy with this decision and I know that their are some who believe that by SCOTUS denying cert that it means a win for Hobby Lobby, which I DON'T believe that's what it means either.......she lost at every level......what would have given her the idea that she had a shot with SCOTUS?

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1553
Apr 7, 2014
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that's their issue then, isn't it? I'm pretty certain that Elaine ISN'T happy with this decision and I know that their are some who believe that by SCOTUS denying cert that it means a win for Hobby Lobby, which I DON'T believe that's what it means either.......she lost at every level......what would have given her the idea that she had a shot with SCOTUS?
Her good Christian lawyers being supplied by the Alliance Defending Freedom (as long as you're Christian and heterosexual) of course. They're also defending the Colorado baker and the county clerk who is the named defendant in the Virginia case, they also defended the Prop 8 proponents, wrote both Arizona and Mississippi's religious freedom bills and defending Scott Lively against a human rights lawsuit filed by gay Ugandans. These are good Christian heterosexuals with law degrees, they are like squirrels on a treadmill, they don't know to stop. I'm not sure if they have a piece of Hobby Lobby or not, if they aren't representing someone they've probably friended the court with their opinion. They're basically ambulance chasing for bigots, lawyers that start circling the moment another good Christian cries for for someone besides Jesus to save them from us.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1554
Apr 7, 2014
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Her good Christian lawyers being supplied by the Alliance Defending Freedom (as long as you're Christian and heterosexual) of course. They're also defending the Colorado baker and the county clerk who is the named defendant in the Virginia case, they also defended the Prop 8 proponents, wrote both Arizona and Mississippi's religious freedom bills and defending Scott Lively against a human rights lawsuit filed by gay Ugandans. These are good Christian heterosexuals with law degrees, they are like squirrels on a treadmill, they don't know to stop. I'm not sure if they have a piece of Hobby Lobby or not, if they aren't representing someone they've probably friended the court with their opinion. They're basically ambulance chasing for bigots, lawyers that start circling the moment another good Christian cries for for someone besides Jesus to save them from us.
Well, the Alliance Defense Fund really should take a look at ALL of the cases they have lost......and they have lost a bunch including the Christian Counseling students who both lost as well......and they DON'T know when to cut their losses.......ugh:(

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1555
Apr 7, 2014
 
NorCal Native wrote:
Well, the Alliance Defense Fund really should take a look at ALL of the cases they have lost......and they have lost a bunch including the Christian Counseling students who both lost as well......and they DON'T know when to cut their losses.......ugh:(
The ones who need to cut their losses are the right wing groups who pay the bills. But for them, it's a tax deductible money laundering operation, employing some of the dullest legal minds in the country.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1556
Apr 8, 2014
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Her good Christian lawyers being supplied by the Alliance Defending Freedom (as long as you're Christian and heterosexual) of course. They're also defending the Colorado baker and the county clerk who is the named defendant in the Virginia case, they also defended the Prop 8 proponents, wrote both Arizona and Mississippi's religious freedom bills and defending Scott Lively against a human rights lawsuit filed by gay Ugandans. These are good Christian heterosexuals with law degrees, they are like squirrels on a treadmill, they don't know to stop. I'm not sure if they have a piece of Hobby Lobby or not, if they aren't representing someone they've probably friended the court with their opinion. They're basically ambulance chasing for bigots, lawyers that start circling the moment another good Christian cries for for someone besides Jesus to save them from us.
ADF is largely underwritten by Hobby Lobby.
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/hobby_lobbys_...
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1557
Apr 8, 2014
 
lides wrote:
Why is it any less Christian to sell them cupcakes or brownies if he finds them or their actions so objectionable?
Because selling people cupcakes and brownies aren't banned by his religion. Gay weddings are. I think alphabet blocks may be to advanced for you.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1558
Apr 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Because selling people cupcakes and brownies aren't banned by his religion.
Neither is selling a large cake with 3 tiers.

Engaging in homosexual activities is banned by his religion, but no one is asking him to do that.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1559
Apr 8, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The_Box wrote:
Neither is selling a large cake with 3 tiers.
Engaging in homosexual activities is banned by his religion, but no one is asking him to do that.
Good luck getting Wonderbread to understand basic logic.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••