Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 38885 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

#1625 Apr 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
“Anyone notice that the anti-SSM crowd never understands what analogies are or how they work?” ...  sad

“Respect's argument was "You can't allow gay couples to get married. The definition is a man and a woman."”  So now you are turning to lies?  I NEVER made the argument,“You can't allow gay couples to get married. The definition is a man and a woman."  My point is and always has been, BE HONEST, and that even if all of America changes the definition of marriage to include gays, it’s not marriage it “gay or same-sex marriage”  which is different. 

I want gays to be with whoever they desire, and Colorado has it right.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1626 Apr 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman" isn't an argument for marriage being only between a man and a woman.”  It’s a fact, no matter what laws get changed.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1627 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Respect, physical equality has nothing to do with equal protection under the law.
This isn't a difficult concept.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Actually, all of which were corrected legislatively or judicially, and in the process changing definitions.
<quoted text>
This isn't about physical equality, foolish person. It is about equal protection of the law, which does not require physical equality.
<quoted text>
Only when they break the law.
“Respect, physical equality has nothing to do with equal protection under the law.
This isn't a difficult concept.”...

“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.” I have and you desire the government to change law to include gays within the definition of marriage. It’s happening. With that you like the fact with that change is the removal of individual rights to suport that change. That’s what isn’t right.

“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.” No you were insulting me because you don’t have an argument for the truth.

“Actually, all of which were corrected legislatively or judicially, and in the process changing definitions.” But when voters vote to leave the definition intact that doesn’t count right? I.E. California and Colorado.

“This isn't about physical equality, foolish person. It is about equal protection of the law, which does not require physical equality.” You are correct it’s not about the Physical equality... It’s about the ENTIRE relationship, physical, mental, and emotional of the gay relationship falls outside of the definition of marriage... Shall we start giving licenses to veterinarians to be Surgeons and claim equal protection under the law?

Care to try again? How are the relationships same and equal for your to claim equal protection?

“Only when they break the law.” AND we are back to the First Amendment of the United States.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1628 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You insult me because you can’t dispute the truth.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1629 Apr 17, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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.
“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.” Because the State is forcing a man to use his talents to support an institution that he doesn’t believe. That is why the First Amendment was writen.

“Face it. You are justifying criminal behavior and nothing more.” I am defending American’s rights, just like I would stand beside the gay baker who was being sewed for not writing “marriage is only for husband and wife” on the wedding cake.

“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"” That’s a different thread and also against the First Amendment for government to force someone to believe the Bible how you see it.
Christsharia Law

Philadelphia, PA

#1630 Apr 17, 2014
"Respect" has some paragraph structure in quoting like Reverand Alan's posts do. And the same deliberate, disingenuous obtuseness in content.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1631 Apr 18, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
So now you are turning to lies?  I NEVER made the argument
You have repeatedly made arguments of that type. Here was the last one.

"I am speaking to the definition of Marriage, of which gays are outside that definition."
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1632 Apr 18, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage is between a man and a woman" isn't an argument for marriage being only between a man and a woman.”  It’s a fact, no matter what laws get changed.
So if the definition is changed nationwide to "a contract between two people", the definition will still be "a contract between one man and one woman"?

You're making that argument again. The one you say you don't make.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1633 Apr 18, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I have and you desire the government to change law to include gays within the definition of marriage. It’s happening. With that you like the fact with that change is the removal of individual rights to support that change. That’s what isn’t right.
Yes, Respect, I do support changing the law to come into compliance with the US Constitution.
This has no impact upon the individual rights any person who would not enter into such a union.
Respect71 wrote:
No you were insulting me because you don’t have an argument for the truth.
Actually, Respect, I did have an argument, which I have already pointed out in the last post. The insult was in addition to the argument, which you have yet to address.

Can you, or an you not, muster the grey matter to indicate a compelling governmental interest furthered by excluding same sex couples from marriage that would render such a restriction constitutional?

You fixate on the insult, because you cannot offer a valid answer to the question.
Respect71 wrote:
But when voters vote to leave the definition intact that doesn’t count right? I.E. California and Colorado.
Voters have no right to vote on fundamental rights. Only a fool would think that it was a good idea to let them do so.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

Consequently, have you noticed that those bans enacted by a popular vote are regularly being found unconstitutional in the courts? This is why.
Respect71 wrote:
You are correct it’s not about the Physical equality... It’s about the ENTIRE relationship, physical, mental, and emotional of the gay relationship falls outside of the definition of marriage...
You've yet to illustrate that the current definition of marriage is constitutional, or that allowing same sex couples to marry has an adverse impact upon anyone.
Respect71 wrote:
Shall we start giving licenses to veterinarians to be Surgeons and claim equal protection under the law?
Of course not, that is a stupid hypothetical situation with no bearing upon the topic at hand.
Respect71 wrote:
Care to try again? How are the relationships same and equal for your to claim equal protection?
They consist of two people, both of whom are entitled to equal protection under the law by the US Constitution.
Respect71 wrote:
AND we are back to the First Amendment of the United States.
No, we're not. Do you know why? because the law preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation do not infringe upon first amendment rights.

Feel free to cite the court cases the state to the contrary.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1634 Apr 18, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You insult me because you can’t dispute the truth.
I insult you because you despicably argue against equal protection of the law for fellow citizens, and you do so without any basis in fact, logic, or reason.

Your arguments are risible, and you have earned each of the insults that have been made of you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1635 Apr 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I insult you because you despicably argue against equal protection of the law for fellow citizens, and you do so without any basis in fact, logic, or reason.
Your arguments are risible, and you have earned each of the insults that have been made of you.
You insult people because you have nothing else.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1636 Apr 18, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“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.” Because the State is forcing a man to use his talents to support an institution that he doesn’t believe. That is why the First Amendment was writen.
“Face it. You are justifying criminal behavior and nothing more.” I am defending American’s rights, just like I would stand beside the gay baker who was being sewed for not writing “marriage is only for husband and wife” on the wedding cake.
“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"” That’s a different thread and also against the First Amendment for government to force someone to believe the Bible how you see it.
Yet you are perfectly happy with someone using the Bible to commit a crime because as you say, " the First Amendment for government to force someone to believe the Bible how you see it."

Once again I ask you where the limits to the religious freedom clause end. Why can't anyone claim religious freedom and start stoning people or executing them?

Seems your whole religious freedom claim is based solely on your anti-gay rhetoric.

Under the law using religion to justify discrimination is called religious discrimination and it's illegal.

End of story Sunshine.
LMAO

(BTW the courts didn't force him to do anything. He was simply convicted of violating State law.)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1637 Apr 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You insult people because you have nothing else.
You want a tissue for your issue or should we call a WHAAAmbulance for you and respect71?

It's amusing watching all of you howl about religious rights when you refuse to grant the same religious rights to gays and lesbians (or anyone else).

You two have no problem supporting laws that deny religious freedom to others.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1638 Apr 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You insult people because you have nothing else.
Like your response in post 1621 on this thread, right?

LOL

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1640 Apr 21, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
You have repeatedly made arguments of that type. Here was the last one.
"I am speaking to the definition of Marriage, of which gays are outside that definition."
That’s the truth... That doesn’t mean I don’t want gays to be with whoever they desire to be with. Colorado is very appropriate with their laws, and I thank God for them.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1641 Apr 21, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
So if the definition is changed nationwide to "a contract between two people", the definition will still be "a contract between one man and one woman"?
You're making that argument again. The one you say you don't make.
If you want to deny truth then you do it based on your own ignorance.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1642 Apr 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Respect, I do support changing the law to come into compliance with the US Constitution.
This has no impact upon the individual rights any person who would not enter into such a union.
<quoted text>
Actually, Respect, I did have an argument, which I have already pointed out in the last post. The insult was in addition to the argument, which you have yet to address.
Can you, or an you not, muster the grey matter to indicate a compelling governmental interest furthered by excluding same sex couples from marriage that would render such a restriction constitutional?
You fixate on the insult, because you cannot offer a valid answer to the question.
<quoted text>
Voters have no right to vote on fundamental rights. Only a fool would think that it was a good idea to let them do so.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Consequently, have you noticed that those bans enacted by a popular vote are regularly being found unconstitutional in the courts? This is why.
<quoted text>
You've yet to illustrate that the current definition of marriage is constitutional, or that allowing same sex couples to marry has an adverse impact upon anyone.
<quoted text>
Of course not, that is a stupid hypothetical situation with no bearing upon the topic at hand.
<quoted text>
They consist of two people, both of whom are entitled to equal protection under the law by the US Constitution.
<quoted text>
No, we're not. Do you know why? because the law preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation do not infringe upon first amendment rights.
Feel free to cite the court cases the state to the contrary.
We can continue going rounds but it will ALWAYS com back to the First Amendment.

“gay marriage” is not an equal protection issue for the very FACT the being gay is DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT for that of a husband and wife PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY, and EMOTIONALLY. You are dishonest about WHY you desire “gay marriage” and that is sad.

“Gay marriage” will be in this country and the question to you will be will you lead the charge for government to force Americans to believe and endorse “gay marriage” with their talents? If so, then you are no American.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1643 Apr 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I insult you because you despicably argue against equal protection of the law for fellow citizens, and you do so without any basis in fact, logic, or reason.
Your arguments are risible, and you have earned each of the insults that have been made of you.
You insult me because you know I speak the truth and you lie about why you desire “gay marriage”.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1644 Apr 21, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yet you are perfectly happy with someone using the Bible to commit a crime because as you say, " the First Amendment for government to force someone to believe the Bible how you see it."
Once again I ask you where the limits to the religious freedom clause end. Why can't anyone claim religious freedom and start stoning people or executing them?
Seems your whole religious freedom claim is based solely on your anti-gay rhetoric.
Under the law using religion to justify discrimination is called religious discrimination and it's illegal.
End of story Sunshine.
LMAO
(BTW the courts didn't force him to do anything. He was simply convicted of violating State law.)
Anyone in the “MARRIAGE INDUSTRY” should have discretion over their cliental because of the very nature of what marriage means to individuals. If you are willing to remove this very basic First Amendment right then “gay marriage” has no place in American society based on the very nature of the issue.

Respecting ALL American’s beliefs is the goal and the reason for the 1st Amendment. That doesn’t mean you have to agree, just be an American.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1645 Apr 21, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You want a tissue for your issue or should we call a WHAAAmbulance for you and respect71?
It's amusing watching all of you howl about religious rights when you refuse to grant the same religious rights to gays and lesbians (or anyone else).
You two have no problem supporting laws that deny religious freedom to others.
You’re speaking of?

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) 40 min Trevet 24,771
ILLEGALS-DRUG LABS-FARMS-Trafficking! (Oct '14) 55 min vATO 2
drugs and dealers (Nov '14) 1 hr Drugs R us 5
Cure for cancer 1 hr Cancer survivor 1
broncos - say no to sanchez 2 hr Third string 3
last post wins! (Feb '11) 4 hr Knock off purse s... 26,144
This is why we need hillary 5 hr Knock off purse s... 8

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages