Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 38703 comments on the Denver Post story from Jun 6, 2013, titled Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake. In it, Denver Post reports that:

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)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Denver Post.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1605 Apr 17, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Eel wrote:
<quoted text>
You sick pos, leave me alone. I'm tired of going over the same things again and again with you. You're contributing to my mental instability. You closet case filth, leave me alone.
Calm down. I understand the questions you face are difficult but you need to understand the truth and be honest. Keep thinking about it.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1606 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
No it’s accurate, straight forward, and truthful. Husband and wife relationships are extremely DIFFERENT than a gay relationship.
You are highly delusional. No one has claimed that the relationships are not different. No two spousal relationships are entirely physically equal.

At issue is the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law for all people.

Marriage is one such protection of the law.
Homosexuals are people.
You are incapable of articulating any compelling governmental interest served by excluding same sex couples from the legal protections of marriage that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1607 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Your framing of the issue is HIGHLY dishonest.” No it’s accurate, straight forward, and truthful. Husband and wife relationships are extremely DIFFERENT than a gay relationship.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said.
Respect71 wrote:
Sexual orientation is not the same and skin color, which is more of evidence of your dishonesty.
I'm not comparing sexual orientation and skin color. I'm comparing BELIEFS about interracial marriage and BELIEFS about same-sex marriage.

If allowing same-sex marriage violates the beliefs of those who oppose it, then allowing interracial marriage violates the beliefs of those who oppose it.

Either both are violations or neither one is.
Respect71 wrote:
No… I want gays to be with whoever they desire and be honest about their relationships.
You don't want them to be able to marry.
Respect71 wrote:
I don’t understand what you are talking about here… To what are you referring?
Respect71 wrote:
I am not speaking to a “marriage contract” I am speaking to the definition of Marriage, of which gays are outside that definition.
Marriage is a legal contract. That's what it is. Any other meaning that YOU personally assign to it is your business.
Respect71 wrote:
No. Forcing me to use my talent to support what I don’t believe does.
So you agree that allowing gay couples to marry is not a violation of your beliefs? Thank you.

I do not agree with you about the anti-discrimination laws, but it seems we have a consensus on marriage itself.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1608 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
At issue is the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law for all people.
All people? That's false, always was and always will be.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1609 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Again, that is a huge assumption based on zero evidence.
Actually, Respect, it is based on the fact they didn't review the case. Do you think the US Supreme Court is in the business of allowing unjust or unconstitutional court decisions to stand?
Respect71 wrote:
He was willing to serve the gay couple, just not the wedding cake because he doesn’t want to use his talent to support that of what he does not believe.
And, the court found that he didn't have that right, that the anti-discrimination law infringed upon none of his rights, and that providing the service would in no way have infringed upon his rights.

Why don't you refer to a court case your side has won, rather than attempt to defend the one you've already lost? Oh, that's right, there isn't one.
Respect71 wrote:
Very little apparently.
Is that the best you can do?
Respect71 wrote:
That is my opinion based on fact.
No, it's your opinion based upon nothing in particular.
Respect71 wrote:
This is your assumption based on no fact.
No, this is fact, based upon the fact that the court didn't take the case.
Respect71 wrote:
The government has to make laws to REDEFINE Marriage to fit gays, so now explain how that treats those who believe marriage as a husband and wife institution as equal and protected under the law?
Nope, just to include them.
You could exclude them if you were capable of articulating a compelling governmental interest served by denying them equal protection of the law.

You don't seem up to the task.
Respect71 wrote:
Not explain why churches can get away with it and NOT the religious individual?
Because churches are not businesses, and function under different rules due to religious freedom.
Do you really need this explained to you in greater detail, because if so, you are even dimmer than I had thought.
Respect71 wrote:
LOL! Hypothetical like your assumption of the Supreme Court?
It's not an assumption, moron. They refused to hear the case, UNANIMOUSLY, allowing the lower court ruling to stand.

Do you think the US Supreme Court is in the business of allowing unconstitutional rulings to stand? If so, you really aren't terribly bright.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1610 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You are highly delusional. No one has claimed that the relationships are not different. No two spousal relationships are entirely physically equal.
At issue is the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law for all people.
Marriage is one such protection of the law.
Homosexuals are people.
You are incapable of articulating any compelling governmental interest served by excluding same sex couples from the legal protections of marriage that would render such a restriction constitutional.
“You are highly delusional. No one has claimed that the relationships are not different.” Then why call for “marriage equality”?
“No two spousal relationships are entirely physically equal.” You are bringing in more intellectual dishonest arguments.

“At issue is the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law for all people.

Marriage is one such protection of the law.” The definition of which has a husband and wife.
“Homosexuals are people.
“You are incapable of articulating any compelling governmental interest served by excluding same sex couples from the legal protections of marriage that would render such a restriction constitutional.” You are incapable of understanding, apparently, because the definition has always been a husband and wife and gays do not have that thus not fitting the definition.

I will state this again! I want gays to be together and be with whoever they desire, and I played my part in causing the Colorado state legislature to enact Civil Unions so that would happen. The state of Colorado defines marriage as between a husband and wife and gays have Civil Unions with all the same benefits (including paying Clinton’s “marriage tax”)… The definitions are clear all are “equally protected” yet gays are now sewing the state. No one will be honest and explain why that is when all you have described has been addressed and accounted for the State of Colorado.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1611 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Respect, it is based on the fact they didn't review the case. Do you think the US Supreme Court is in the business of allowing unjust or unconstitutional court decisions to stand?
<quoted text>
And, the court found that he didn't have that right, that the anti-discrimination law infringed upon none of his rights, and that providing the service would in no way have infringed upon his rights.
Why don't you refer to a court case your side has won, rather than attempt to defend the one you've already lost? Oh, that's right, there isn't one.
<quoted text>
Is that the best you can do?
<quoted text>
No, it's your opinion based upon nothing in particular.
<quoted text>
No, this is fact, based upon the fact that the court didn't take the case.
<quoted text>
Nope, just to include them.
You could exclude them if you were capable of articulating a compelling governmental interest served by denying them equal protection of the law.
You don't seem up to the task.
<quoted text>
Because churches are not businesses, and function under different rules due to religious freedom.
Do you really need this explained to you in greater detail, because if so, you are even dimmer than I had thought.
<quoted text>
It's not an assumption, moron. They refused to hear the case, UNANIMOUSLY, allowing the lower court ruling to stand.
Do you think the US Supreme Court is in the business of allowing unconstitutional rulings to stand? If so, you really aren't terribly bright.
“Actually, Respect, it is based on the fact they didn't review the case. Do you think the US Supreme Court is in the business of allowing unjust or unconstitutional court decisions to stand?
And, the court found that he didn't have that right, that the anti-discrimination law infringed upon none of his rights, and that providing the service would in no way have infringed upon his rights.
Why don't you refer to a court case your side has won, rather than attempt to defend the one you've already lost? Oh, that's right, there isn't one. Is that the best you can do? No, it's your opinion based upon nothing in particular. No, this is fact, based upon the fact that the court didn't take the case.” Until you can cite a reason for the Supreme Court to deny the case all you have is your assumption.
Respect71 wrote:
The government has to make laws to REDEFINE Marriage to fit gays, so now explain how that treats those who believe marriage as a husband and wife institution as equal and protected under the law?
“Nope, just to include them.
You could exclude them if you were capable of articulating a compelling governmental interest served by denying them equal protection of the law.

You don't seem up to the task.” Insulting me is not a argument.

“Because churches are not businesses, and function under different rules due to religious freedom.
Do you really need this explained to you in greater detail, because if so, you are even dimmer than I had thought.” Insulting me isn’t an argument if a church in the public square can be discretionary in regards to marriage why can’t a religious business owner be the same, especially understanding that our Country was founded on religious liberties?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1612 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Then why call for “marriage equality”?
Because it is about equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the US Constitution for all people.
Do we really have to go over such basic concepts?
Respect71 wrote:
You are bringing in more intellectual dishonest arguments.
No, I am just illustrating the obvious, because apparently you need help understanding the obvious.
Respect71 wrote:
The definition of which has a husband and wife.
Of course, you are incapable of articulating any compelling governmental interest served by restricting marriage to being between opposite sex couples that would render such a definition constitutional.
Respect71 wrote:
You are incapable of understanding, apparently, because the definition has always been a husband and wife and gays do not have that thus not fitting the definition.
Reality, that is a pretty pathetic argument. Using that standard, slavery would still be legal, women couldn't vote, and segregation would still be around just because they always had been.
Respect71 wrote:
I will state this again!
Because somehow you equate repetition with validity.
Respect71 wrote:
I want gays to be together and be with whoever they desire, and I played my part in causing the Colorado state legislature to enact Civil Unions so that would happen. The state of Colorado defines marriage as between a husband and wife and gays have Civil Unions with all the same benefits (including paying Clinton’s “marriage tax”)… The definitions are clear all are “equally protected” yet gays are now sewing the state. No one will be honest and explain why that is when all you have described has been addressed and accounted for the State of Colorado.
Reality, get a grip. Separate is not equal. The country is quickly coming to this conclusion, which is why a majority of Americans support marriage equality. http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

So you see, it is simply a matter of time. Even if it comes down to a popular vote, the majority is on the side of equality under the law for all.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1613 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The government has to make laws to REDEFINE Marriage to fit gays, so now explain how that treats those who believe marriage as a husband and wife institution as equal and protected under the law?
“Nope, just to include them.
You could exclude them if you were capable of articulating a compelling governmental interest served by denying them equal protection of the law.
You don't seem up to the task.” Insulting me is not a argument.
Of course, the argument that I articulated of a compelling governmental interest is an argument, to which you seem incapable of responding.
Respect71 wrote:
Insulting me isn’t an argument if a church in the public square can be discretionary in regards to marriage why can’t a religious business owner be the same, especially understanding that our Country was founded on religious liberties?
Respect, I answered your question, which was pathetic. Calling you out on making a stupid comparison is the result of making a stupid comparison. If you say something dumb, you had better stand prepared to reap the reward.

Religious liberties do not include thrusting one's religious morality onto customers by denying service to those who believe differently. Actually, that is arguably an infringement of the religious freedom of the customer.

Face it kiddo, your side lost this argument in court because religious freedom does not include the right to persecute those who hold differing beliefs.

Judge not, and treat your neighbor as yourself.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1614 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it is about equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the US Constitution for all people.
Do we really have to go over such basic concepts?
Yes, at least until you understand them.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1615 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
Reality, that is a pretty pathetic argument. Using that standard, slavery would still be legal, women couldn't vote, and segregation would still be around just because they always had been.
What the hell does any of that have to do with two men or two women marrying?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1616 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it is about equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the US Constitution for all people.
Do we really have to go over such basic concepts?
<quoted text>
No, I am just illustrating the obvious, because apparently you need help understanding the obvious.
<quoted text>
Of course, you are incapable of articulating any compelling governmental interest served by restricting marriage to being between opposite sex couples that would render such a definition constitutional.
<quoted text>
Reality, that is a pretty pathetic argument. Using that standard, slavery would still be legal, women couldn't vote, and segregation would still be around just because they always had been.
<quoted text>
Because somehow you equate repetition with validity.
<quoted text>
Reality, get a grip. Separate is not equal. The country is quickly coming to this conclusion, which is why a majority of Americans support marriage equality. http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
So you see, it is simply a matter of time. Even if it comes down to a popular vote, the majority is on the side of equality under the law for all.
“Because it is about equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the US Constitution for all people.
Do we really have to go over such basic concepts?” So out one side of your mouth it’s different and the other side its the same of equal?
“No, I am just illustrating the obvious, because apparently you need help understanding the obvious.“ What’s obvious is you are distracting from the OBVIOUS differences of a husband and wife relationship and a gay relationship.
“Of course, you are incapable of articulating any compelling governmental interest served by restricting marriage to being between opposite sex couples that would render such a definition constitutional.” Insulting me is not an argument.

“Reality, that is a pretty pathetic argument. Using that standard, slavery would still be legal, women couldn't vote, and segregation would still be around just because they always had been.” None of which government had to make laws to CHANGE the definition.

“Reality, get a grip. Separate is not equal.” Reality, explain how the GAY relationship is the SAME or Equal to the husband and wife relationship.

“The country is quickly coming to this conclusion, which is why a majority of Americans support marriage equality. http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

So you see, it is simply a matter of time. Even if it comes down to a popular vote, the majority is on the side of equality under the law for all.” And more prosecutions of those who believe in traditional marriage.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1617 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the argument that I articulated of a compelling governmental interest is an argument, to which you seem incapable of responding.
<quoted text>
Respect, I answered your question, which was pathetic. Calling you out on making a stupid comparison is the result of making a stupid comparison. If you say something dumb, you had better stand prepared to reap the reward.
Religious liberties do not include thrusting one's religious morality onto customers by denying service to those who believe differently. Actually, that is arguably an infringement of the religious freedom of the customer.
Face it kiddo, your side lost this argument in court because religious freedom does not include the right to persecute those who hold differing beliefs.
Judge not, and treat your neighbor as yourself.
Your insulting me only shows your dishonesty and your distain for Americans who believe different as you. I’ve lost nothing until I get prosecuted for holding my belief in traditional marriage. We shall see..
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1618 Apr 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What the hell does any of that have to do with two men or two women marrying?
Anyone notice that the anti-SSM crowd never understands what analogies are or how they work?

Respect's argument was "You can't allow gay couples to get married. The definition is a man and a woman."

This isn't an argument. It's just stating the status quo. It's the same thing as:

"We can't legalize marijuana use. Marijuana use is illegal."
"We can't free the slaves. They're the property of that guy."
"We can't change the tax rate. The law says it's 3%."

"Marriage is between a man and a woman" isn't an argument for marriage being only between a man and a woman.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1619 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
So out one side of your mouth it’s different and the other side its the same of equal?
Respect, physical equality has nothing to do with equal protection under the law.
This isn't a difficult concept.
Respect71 wrote:
What’s obvious is you are distracting from the OBVIOUS differences of a husband and wife relationship and a gay relationship.
What is obvious is that you lack the ability to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection under the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Respect71 wrote:
Insulting me is not an argument.
Did you skip over the part about the compelling governmental interest, Respect?
I am merely pointing out that you lack an argument with a sound basis that would pass the existing judicial levels of scrutiny.
Respect71 wrote:
None of which government had to make laws to CHANGE the definition.
Actually, all of which were corrected legislatively or judicially, and in the process changing definitions.
Respect71 wrote:
Reality, explain how the GAY relationship is the SAME or Equal to the husband and wife relationship.
This isn't about physical equality, foolish person. It is about equal protection of the law, which does not require physical equality.
Respect71 wrote:
And more prosecutions of those who believe in traditional marriage.
Only when they break the law.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1620 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Your insulting me only shows your dishonesty and your distain for Americans who believe different as you. I’ve lost nothing until I get prosecuted for holding my belief in traditional marriage. We shall see..
I only insult you, Respect, because your posts do not reflect your namesake. Your detestable arguments that fellow citizens should be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law are unAmerican and disrespectful. Any insult that you have incurred from me has been thoroughly earned.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1621 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I only insult you,
Because that's all you've got.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#1622 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Marriage licenses confer federal benefits.” Describe?
No, child, ask your mommy for some insight into basic reality.

It's true homophobic bigots are being forced by all three branches of government into not being able to enforce their sick, homophobic bigotry.

That's how laws work - they require the people who disagree with them to abide by them.

Sniffle.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#1623 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Respect, physical equality has nothing to do with equal protection under the law.
We're dealing with a particularly toxic troll.

The dreadful thing just asked me to list any state and federal benefits you get by dint of being legally married....

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1624 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why are you opposed to States' Rights? In this case it is State law that was violated.
You can try to twist things around as much as you want but the baker broke both the State law, and violated the Civil Rights Act's section covering public accommodations.

Face it. You are justifying criminal behavior and nothing more.

You want to whine about rights while you ignore the personal responsibility involved here in upholding civil law.

BTW the Bible itself condemns this baker fort his actions. So why not complain about who wrote the Bible. The baker uses Romans and leviticus to justify their actions so let's look at what is found in those two parts of "Christian Law"

Romans (ESV)
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Leviticus 19:18
English Standard Version (ESV)
18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

So basically it appears that what you want is for people to not be held accountable for their actions.

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) 35 min tbird19482 24,642
Nicole Dubois-Savage 4 hr UIAC 1
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 12 hr Cyberrjesus 670
News Clinton's Transition Team: A Corporate Presiden... 13 hr vote for Jill Stein 1
got meds 14 hr Wheatridge co 4
(.R ox y Bulk!!) ku*sh !! 14 hr Wheatridge co 3
Denver is one big traffic jam 19 hr NEMO 1
Morgan Ingram was not murdered nor stalked. (Nov '12) 23 hr KDG 85

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages