Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 6,130

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 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1561 Apr 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It's simple. By providing a cake for a gay wedding he's a participant. That is engaging in homosexual activities.
Providing someone a good does not make you a participant in whatever activity they choose to use that good for.

If Walmart sells me a gun and I use it to rob a bank, Walmart isn't a participant in the robbery.
If Food Lion sells me hot dogs and I cook them on my grill, Food Lion isn't a participant in my BBQ.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1562 Apr 8, 2014
lides wrote:
ADF is largely underwritten by Hobby Lobby.
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/hobby_lobbys_...
All these right wing dominionist groups are one great big happy incestuous family.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#1565 Apr 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
And just what law passed by Congress did the baker violate? Funny that in this case your side wants to ignore States Rights when it comes to regulating commerce. And that is what the case is about.

The ONLY reason religion is even being raised as an issue is for the political opposition to SSM to manipulate the system. Like you are attempting to do.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1566 Apr 14, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>.
“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.” When the government forces a man to go against his belief it is time to be very concerned. It leads to things like CEO losing their careers ( http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/03/technology/mo... ) because of their beliefs and that infringes upon Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I understand that he said that. He has not demonstrated that it is true. Truth be told, this actually makes your argument weaker.” Really? Did the gay couple ask to buy anything else? How many other gay people have bought from him? Do you have evidence?
“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?” Because he believes marriage is for a husband and wife and his talents are used to support what he doesn’t believe.
 
“Baking the cake was the service, you twit.”  A service to support something he does not believe.
 
“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.”  Yet because the baker disagrees with you,  you endorse government punishment because of your disagreement.  
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?”  I see you my statement. Let me be more direct and very clear.  Would you support government to force a gay baker to print the words “MARRIAGE IS ONLY FOR A HUSBAND AND WIFE”?  It’s a yes or no question.
 
“Civil unions do not provide legal spousal privilege against testimony against a spouse in court.”  They do in Colorado Yet, that isn’t enough… Why?
 
“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.”  Or your side can stop being gay in public… You can’t remove rights and expect you to stay intact.
 
“He's not supporting gay marriage. He's baking and selling a cake. It is not unconstitutional for the government to regulate business practices.” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”  It’s sad you don’t understand.
 
“Equality.”  Explain how the gay relationship is the SAME or EQUAL to the of a husband and wife relationship.
“No, that's by definition. There is no marriage in nature.”  In human nature there is otherwise there would be no definition and having government to redefine.
 
“What's the difference between treating people poorly because of their race and treating people poorly because of their sexual orientation?” First, you are speaking of skin color and behavior, which are two different things, and second, NOT selling a wedding cake is hardly treating a person poorly.
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.”  Then you are inconsistent based on your desire to force your beliefs on other Americans. I would ABSOLUTLY support the gay baker in refusing business because of who he/she is and what they believe about marriage.  Although being gay isn’t a religion, under the First Amendment they have the right to believe what marriage is to them, thereby not serving mean people who only believe in  husband and wife couples.
 

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1567 Apr 14, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>.
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.”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1568 Apr 14, 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.
At the very least you are consistent and would be willing to prosecute the gay baker for not doing essentially the co baker has done… AND  I would support that gay baker to refuse the business.  I commend you for your consistency, however, I disagree with you that it’s the government’s place to force businesses to a will no matter what it is.  Business is a two way street, and the business own has the right to how he wants to run his business and the consumer has the right to choose the business desired. 
 
There was a time when anti-discrimination laws were needed BUT because Americans have tolerated such laws to the present we now have a federal government forcing individuals to purchase from business without choice, limiting our freedom even more.  That’s an entirely different Oprah!

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1569 Apr 14, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And just what law passed by Congress did the baker violate? Funny that in this case your side wants to ignore States Rights when it comes to regulating commerce. And that is what the case is about.
The ONLY reason religion is even being raised as an issue is for the political opposition to SSM to manipulate the system. Like you are attempting to do.
We all have rights and if you are willing to remove Americans of their right to believe in husband and wives in regards to family, then you are intolerant and un-American.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1570 Apr 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
When the government forces a man to go against his belief it is time to be very concerned. It leads to things like CEO losing their careers because of their beliefs and that infringes upon Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Get a grip, Respect. Eich resigned of his own free will. He was free to speak freely, and make donations to the political campaigns of his choosing. However the customers of Mozilla also have a right to express their displeasure at his advancement in the company.
Respect71 wrote:
Really? Did the gay couple ask to buy anything else? How many other gay people have bought from him? Do you have evidence?
They weren't looking to buy anything else. The Colorado court correctly decided that providing the service would in no way adversely impact the rights of the baker.
Respect71 wrote:
Because he believes marriage is for a husband and wife and his talents are used to support what he doesn’t believe.
 He may hold that belief. As such, he has the right not to marry someone of the same sex. He does not have the right to discriminate against one who decides to do so, and their actions in no way impact the rights of the baker.
Respect71 wrote:
A service to support something he does not believe.
The court found that the service did not rise to the level of speech, and that providing the service in no way infringes upon the baker's rights. Nothing that you have said proves to the contrary.
Respect71 wrote:
Yet because the baker disagrees with you,  you endorse government punishment because of your disagreement. 
 
And the law disagrees with the baker. Guess who wins?
Respect71 wrote:
Respect71 wrote:
Have you started forgetting what you had previously said.
Respect71 wrote:
I see you my statement. Let me be more direct and very clear.  Would you support government to force a gay baker to print the words “MARRIAGE IS ONLY FOR A HUSBAND AND WIFE”?  It’s a yes or no question.
If I were the baker, I would bake that cake and sell it at a premium.
Respect71 wrote:
They do in Colorado Yet, that isn’t enough… Why?
Civil unions may exist in Colorado, but they do not provide equal legal protection to a civil marriage.
Respect71 wrote:
Or your side can stop being gay in public… You can’t remove rights and expect you to stay intact.
Sorry, kiddo. That reasoning doesn't even pass a rational basis test.
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”  It’s sad you don’t understand.
 Baking the cake in no way prevents his free exercise.
Respect71 wrote:
Explain how the gay relationship is the SAME or EQUAL to the of a husband and wife relationship.
Simple, it's two people with the same legal rights and protections.
Respect71 wrote:
In human nature there is otherwise there would be no definition and having government to redefine.
Sorry, Charlie your argument of natural law are laughable.
Respect71 wrote:
“First, you are speaking of skin color and behavior, which are two different things, and second, NOT selling a wedding cake is hardly treating a person poorly.
I am talking about equal protection of the law for all. So far, you have indicated no reason why same sex couples should be excluded.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1571 Apr 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Then you are inconsistent based on your desire to force your beliefs on other Americans. I would ABSOLUTLY support the gay baker in refusing business because of who he/she is and what they believe about marriage.  Although being gay isn’t a religion, under the First Amendment they have the right to believe what marriage is to them, thereby not serving mean people who only believe in  husband and wife couples.
Ensuring that a business may not project their religious moral beliefs onto customers, or deny service on the basis of sexual orientation does not impact the rights of the owner.

Arguably, if the baker denies service on the basis of their religious beliefs, they are projecting their religious moral views onto their potential clientele in violation of their civil rights.

Face it, there is no rational reason why a proprietor should be allowed to project their religious morals onto others or deny service based upon the beliefs of the proprietor.

This is why you have lost in court, and why you will continue to lose.

Did you ever stop to think that the reason the US Supreme Court refused to hear Elaine Photography is that they thought the lower courts ruling was correct?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1572 Apr 14, 2014
lides wrote:
1. Arguably, if the baker denies service on the basis of their religious beliefs, they are projecting their religious moral views onto their potential clientele in violation of their civil rights.
2. Face it, there is no rational reason why a proprietor should be allowed to project their religious morals onto others or deny service based upon the beliefs of the proprietor.
3. This is why you have lost in court, and why you will continue to lose.
4. Did you ever stop to think that the reason the US Supreme Court refused to hear Elaine Photography is that they thought the lower courts ruling was correct?
1. False. He didn't tell them it was wrong for them to go to another baker to get a cake. He said he couldn't do it.
2. Are they not US citizens? Does the constitution not apply to them?
3. Courts think it isn't PC to side with a baker instead of a group.
4. The photography case was even more egregious. They would be far more involved than a baker.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1574 Apr 14, 2014
lides wrote:
Ensuring that a business may not project their religious moral beliefs onto customers, or deny service on the basis of sexual orientation does not impact the rights of the owner.

Arguably, if the baker denies service on the basis of their religious beliefs, they are projecting their religious moral views onto their potential clientele in violation of their civil rights.

Face it, there is no rational reason why a proprietor should be allowed to project their religious morals onto others or deny service based upon the beliefs of the proprietor.

This is why you have lost in court, and why you will continue to lose.

Did you ever stop to think that the reason the US Supreme Court refused to hear Elaine Photography is that they thought the lower courts ruling was correct?
Fines and jail time.

Please cite the Supreme Court's reason to prove that any part of what you say is truth.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1575 Apr 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Please cite the Supreme Court's reason to prove that any part of what you say is truth.
50 years of standing law via the Civil Rights Act show that personal religious beliefs do not override anti-discrimination laws.
Christianists R illin

Philadelphia, PA

#1576 Apr 14, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Arguably, if the baker denies service on the basis of their religious beliefs, they are projecting their religious moral views onto their potential clientele in violation of [the customers'] civil rights.
This principle is well established.

Amish owned businesses must participate in Social Security against their religious views.

Racist business owners may not have segregated lunch counters due to "religious" views.

Ceremonies, even in houses of worship, very constitutionally protected spaces, may not use peyote as part of their religious beliefs.

There's a balancing test involving how important the courts find the state interest in pursuing a certain goal - a retirement program, avoiding invidious discrimination - but you can't just say "religious belief" and get to do whatever you want.

We are talking about places of public accommodation. If the bigot baker wants to make his bakery a dues collecting, private club then he could do what he wants. Just as he may now do in his private life.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1577 Apr 15, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
50 years of standing law via the Civil Rights Act show that personal religious beliefs do not override anti-discrimination laws.
Where did the Supreme Court post that the reason they denied hearing the case?

You can’t force all Americans to believe and accept a new definition of marriage by using government and laws. Your hate for your fellow Americans who belief different than you doesn’t help either.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1578 Apr 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did the Supreme Court post that the reason they denied hearing the case?
They don't need to, but that has nothing to do with my post. Legal precedent says anti-discrimination laws do not violation free exercise of religion.
Respect71 wrote:
You can’t force all Americans to believe and accept a new definition of marriage by using government and laws.
Uh, isn't forcing all Americans to accept a certain definition what YOU are doing? You are the one who wants to restrict marriage.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1579 Apr 15, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't need to, but that has nothing to do with my post. Legal precedent says anti-discrimination laws do not violation free exercise of religion.
<quoted text>
Uh, isn't forcing all Americans to accept a certain definition what YOU are doing? You are the one who wants to restrict marriage.
“They don't need to, but that has nothing to do with my post. Legal precedent says anti-discrimination laws do not violation free exercise of religion.” The question is what is being discriminated, the gay person of the support of “gay-marriage”. The Supreme Court will not be able to ignore these cases much longer.

“Uh, isn't forcing all Americans to accept a certain definition what YOU are doing? You are the one who wants to restrict marriage.” Marriage is restricted to husband and wife, and it’s YOU who wants government to CHANGE that definition, thus imposing your beliefs on other Americans, instead of having respect for the First Amendment of our Constitution.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1580 Apr 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The question is what is being discriminated, the gay person of the support of “gay-marriage”.
The gay person.

If the baker sells wedding cakes and a straight couple wants to purchase one, they can. If a gay couple wants to purchase one, they can't. Their sexual orientation is clearly the determining factor.
Respect71 wrote:
Marriage is restricted to husband and wife, and it’s YOU who wants government to CHANGE that definition, thus imposing your beliefs on other Americans, instead of having respect for the First Amendment of our Constitution.
Black is white. Up is down.

You have it totally backwards. My position allows both gay and straight Americans to be free to marry. It imposes nothing. Your position prohibits gay people from marrying. You are imposing your beliefs on them by restricting them.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1581 Apr 15, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The gay person.
If the baker sells wedding cakes and a straight couple wants to purchase one, they can. If a gay couple wants to purchase one, they can't. Their sexual orientation is clearly the determining factor.
<quoted text>
Black is white. Up is down.
You have it totally backwards. My position allows both gay and straight Americans to be free to marry. It imposes nothing. Your position prohibits gay people from marrying. You are imposing your beliefs on them by restricting them.
The gay person.

“If the baker sells wedding cakes and a straight couple wants to purchase one, they can. If a gay couple wants to purchase one, they can't. Their sexual orientation is clearly the determining factor.” Forcing a Baker to use his talents to support “gay marriage” is the issue. The bake was willing to sell the couple anything else in his shop.

“Black is white. Up is down.

You have it totally backwards. My position allows both gay and straight Americans to be free to marry. It imposes nothing. Your position prohibits gay people from marrying. You are imposing your beliefs on them by restricting them.” My position is HONEST. I want gays to be with whoever they desire to spend their life with and government shouldn’t prevent them from doing that. Redefining Marriage to do it imposes your beliefs on someone like a baker who only bakes weeding cakes for husbands and wives.

Colorado is honest in what it has done to accommodate all its citizens. The marriage definition remains as gays can have all the legal rights with civil unions.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1583 Apr 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Fines and jail time.
Please cite the Supreme Court's reason to prove that any part of what you say is truth.
Simple, simpleton, they refused to hear Elaine Photography's case.

If they thought the lower courts were wrong, they would have heard arguments.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1584 Apr 15, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple, simpleton, they refused to hear Elaine Photography's case.
If they thought the lower courts were wrong, they would have heard arguments.
Cite the source that proves what you are saying is true. Which justice said that?

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) 3 hr You can call me Dick 14,399
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
Legit pain n anxiety meds Thu Reyna lokita 2
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