Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 42970 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.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1646 Apr 21, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
We can continue going rounds but it will ALWAYS com back to the First Amendment.
We could, and it won't.
Denying service to someone who believes differently from yourself is not a violation of your rights.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.
Dear moron, gay marriage is equal protection of the law, even if you don't like it.
Respect71 wrote:
“Gay marriage” will be in this country
It certainly will. And you will be an idiot.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
Nope, Americans have free will, and free speech, they can't be compelled to accept anything they don't care for, no matter how common-sense it might be.

You are free to be an imbecile.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1647 Apr 21, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You insult me because you know I speak the truth and you lie about why you desire “gay marriage”.
I insult you because you are an imbecile spouting unconstitutional rhetoric.

You have deserved every insult that you have earned.

“Low Information Outreach”

Level 3

Since: Jun 12

Under the Castle Rock

#1648 Apr 21, 2014
Gay marriage = Feaux Marriage, it's an obamanation.
Sniffles.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1649 Apr 21, 2014
Trolli wrote:
Gay marriage = Feaux Marriage, it's an obamanation.
Sniffles.
Gay marriage = equality under the law, as guarantee by the US Constitution.

Those who feel otherwise = morons.

“Low Information Outreach”

Level 3

Since: Jun 12

Under the Castle Rock

#1650 Apr 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay marriage = equality under the law, as guarantee by the US Constitution.
Those who feel otherwise = morons.
You must be gay. Living the feaux life.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1651 Apr 21, 2014
Trolli wrote:
You must be gay. Living the feaux life.
By that reasoning, you must be an idiot, watching faux (actual french spelling) news.

Grow up, moron.

“Low Information Outreach”

Level 3

Since: Jun 12

Under the Castle Rock

#1652 Apr 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
By that reasoning, you must be an idiot, watching faux (actual french spelling) news.
Grow up, moron.
You obviously misunderstood my reasoning, this is not the moron forum and I am not sticking up for any morons. But then what should one expect from someone who doesn't know how to spell feaux.
Feaux Marriage, let it bother you.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1653 Apr 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
We could, and it won't.
Denying service to someone who believes differently from yourself is not a violation of your rights.
<quoted text>
Dear moron, gay marriage is equal protection of the law, even if you don't like it.
<quoted text>
It certainly will. And you will be an idiot.
<quoted text>
Nope, Americans have free will, and free speech, they can't be compelled to accept anything they don't care for, no matter how common-sense it might be.
You are free to be an imbecile.
“We could, and it won't.
Denying service to someone who believes differently from yourself is not a violation of your rights.” Apparently, we continue…

“Dear moron, gay marriage is equal protection of the law, even if you don't like it.”“Gay marriage” is just that whether government endorses it or not.

“It certainly will. And you will be an idiot.” It will… It’s sad you ignore the truth and call others names because of your ignorance.

“You are free to be an imbecile.” And you are free because of millions of others like me and my actions.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1654 Apr 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I insult you because you are an imbecile spouting unconstitutional rhetoric.
You have deserved every insult that you have earned.
I understand facing the truth is difficult, and regardless, you have to live with it, even if you do choose to ignore it. That’s your choice.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1655 Apr 22, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Apparently, we continue…
To be willfully ignorant? You certainly do.
Respect71 wrote:
“Gay marriage” is just that whether government endorses it or not.
Gay marriage is absolutely an equal protection issue. A fact that a majority of Americans, and an increasing number of courts understand, even if you do not.
Respect71 wrote:
It will… It’s sad you ignore the truth and call others names because of your ignorance.
I call you names, because you have earned them. Face it, kiddo, you are arguing for fellow citizens to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
That's not bright, it's not constitutional, it isn't civil, and it's unAmerican.
Respect71 wrote:
And you are free because of millions of others like me and my actions.
What were you attempting to say?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1656 Apr 22, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I understand facing the truth is difficult,
What would you know about facing the truth? You certainly have never done so here. You are living in your own little fantasyland where you think that you have the right to withhold the legal rights and protections of fellow Americans.
Respect71 wrote:
and regardless, you have to live with it, even if you do choose to ignore it. That’s your choice.
And the truth is, equality is well on its way in spite of your inept opinions.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1657 Apr 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you know about facing the truth? You certainly have never done so here. You are living in your own little fantasyland where you think that you have the right to withhold the legal rights and protections of fellow Americans.
<quoted text>
And the truth is, equality is well on its way in spite of your inept opinions.
“To be willfully ignorant? You certainly do.” LOL... It’s okay. We can continue...

“Gay marriage is absolutely an equal protection issue. A fact that a majority of Americans, and an increasing number of courts understand, even if you do not.”“gay marriage” is just that, whether government endorses it or not.

“I call you names, because you have earned them.” It’s an irrational response without argument.

“Face it, kiddo, you are arguing for fellow citizens to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
That's not bright, it's not constitutional, it isn't civil, and it's unAmerican.” That’s why you’re ignorant. I argue for citizens rights, including gays.

“What were you attempting to say?” You are free because of Americans like myself who have sacrificed a great deal to allow you that freedom. Be gay, be “gay married”, but does a baker who doesn’t support your “gay marriage” mean you have to charge government to prosecute?

“What would you know about facing the truth? You certainly have never done so here.“ Apparently more than you.

“You are living in your own little fantasyland where you think that you have the right to withhold the legal rights and protections of fellow Americans.” I don’t and because you say that I do shows your are even more dishonest with this subject.

“And the truth is, equality is well on its way in spite of your inept opinions.” The TRUTH is a husband and wife couple is vastly DIFFERENT from a gay couple, which even when laws come to change the definition of marriage, still won’t change the nature of that simple truth.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1658 Apr 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
GOOD LORD GRACIE PICK A LANE!

On the one hand you say, "Colorado is very appropriate with their laws, and I thank God for them" and yet you've been on here since June 2013 WHINING about Colorado's Public Accommodations law.

I thought FaFoxy was the dizziest queen on Topix, but you're giving him some FIERCE competition now.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1659 Apr 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why should people in the "marriage industry" get special rights?

You say, "Respecting ALL American’s beliefs is the goal and the reason for the 1st Amendment." and that is true.(yet you can't explain how using religion to disrespect others furthers that goal, nor can you explain why these people are catering weddings for other religions, if their religious views matter so much to them)

You want to eviscerate the ideal of 'Respecting ALL American’s beliefs' by granting people the right to ignore civil laws just because they feel "uncomfortable" about them. If people in the "wedding industry" aren't willing to serve all weddings then they shouldn't be in the business.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1660 Apr 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
LOL... It’s okay. We can continue...
I'll tell you what, you can keep up with the ignorance yourself.
Respect71 wrote:
“gay marriage” is just that, whether government endorses it or not.
Endorses equal protection of the law? That's just constitutional, kiddo.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s an irrational response without argument.
It is a perfectly appropriate response to juvenile and intolerant rhetoric, and you have earned, yes EARNED, every word of it.
Respect71 wrote:
That’s why you’re ignorant. I argue for citizens rights, including gays.
No, no you don't. You frequently argue for some citizens to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law. Don't try to re-write history, your BS is on display all over the thread, and that is exactly what you have been doing.
Respect71 wrote:
You are free because of Americans like myself who have sacrificed a great deal to allow you that freedom.
Ergo, you think you have a right to decide how I use that freedom? Guess what, kiddo, that would no longer be freedom.
Respect71 wrote:
Be gay, be “gay married”, but does a baker who doesn’t support your “gay marriage” mean you have to charge government to prosecute?
Funny, the courts seem to think otherwise. The reality is that providing a service to a gay couple does not violate the rights of the baker, any more than providing the same service to someone of another race, sex, religion, etc does.
Respect71 wrote:
Apparently more than you.
I love when you respond in sentence fragments that fail to make any point whatsoever.
Respect71 wrote:
I don’t and because you say that I do shows your are even more dishonest with this subject.
Respect, tell the truth, you have routinely argued for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law. You may find this phrasing of your position to be distasteful, but that doesn't remove the reality that it is true.
Respect71 wrote:
The TRUTH is a husband and wife couple is vastly DIFFERENT from a gay couple,

And this has what impact upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law?
Every married couple is physically unique and different. At issue is equal protection of the law for the individuals to make their own legal choices and have the same rights and protections under the law.
Respect71 wrote:
which even when laws come to change the definition of marriage, still won’t change the nature of that simple truth.
Equality under the law is key, and I don't think you possess the grey matter to offer a rational argument why same sex couples should be denied the legal protection of marriage, much less to offer a compelling governmental interest served by excluding them from such protection that would render such a restriction constitutional.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1661 Apr 23, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>GOOD LORD GRACIE PICK A LANE!
On the one hand you say, "Colorado is very appropriate with their laws, and I thank God for them" and yet you've been on here since June 2013 WHINING about Colorado's Public Accommodations law.
I thought FaFoxy was the dizziest queen on Topix, but you're giving him some FIERCE competition now.
GOOD LORD GRACIE PICK A LANE!

On the one hand you say, "Colorado is very appropriate with their laws, and I thank God for them" and yet you've been on here since June 2013 WHINING about Colorado's Public Accommodations law.

I thought FaFoxy was the dizziest queen on Topix, but you're giving him some FIERCE competition now.

Are you trying to insult me? I am for Colorado’s Accommodation law, with the exception of the baker for the reasons I have described repeatedly. Will you stand with the gay baker who is asked by (let’s say a couple from the Westboro Baptist Church) to bake a cake that with print “marriage is ONLY for a man and wife”, if the gay baker decides not to provide that service? That gay baker shouldn’t be forced to do that and face prosecution.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1662 Apr 23, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Why should people in the "marriage industry" get special rights?
You say, "Respecting ALL American’s beliefs is the goal and the reason for the 1st Amendment." and that is true.(yet you can't explain how using religion to disrespect others furthers that goal, nor can you explain why these people are catering weddings for other religions, if their religious views matter so much to them)
You want to eviscerate the ideal of 'Respecting ALL American’s beliefs' by granting people the right to ignore civil laws just because they feel "uncomfortable" about them. If people in the "wedding industry" aren't willing to serve all weddings then they shouldn't be in the business.
“Why should people in the "marriage industry" get special rights?” Please explain what is special about First Amendment rights? Why do you support the government farcing a man to use his talent to support “gay Marriage”?

“You say, "Respecting ALL American’s beliefs is the goal and the reason for the 1st Amendment." and that is true.(yet you can't explain how using religion to disrespect others furthers that goal, nor can you explain why these people are catering weddings for other religions, if their religious views matter so much to them)” I have repeatedly, yet you ignore what I write, or you interpret what I write into something completely different.

“You want to eviscerate the ideal of 'Respecting ALL American’s beliefs' by granting people the right to ignore civil laws just because they feel "uncomfortable" about them. If people in the "wedding industry" aren't willing to serve all weddings then they shouldn't be in the business.” Then you are willing to remove individual freedoms for your belief in “gay marriage”. That’s sad.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1663 Apr 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll tell you what, you can keep up with the ignorance yourself.
<quoted text>
Endorses equal protection of the law? any more than providing the same service to someone of another race, sex, religion, etc does.
<quoted text>
I love when you respond in sentence fragments that fail to make any point whatsoever.
<quoted text>
Respect, tell the truth, you have routinely argued for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law. You may find this phrasing of your position to be distasteful, but that doesn't remove the reality that it is true.
<quoted text>
And this has what impact upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law?
Every married couple is physically unique and different. At issue is equal protection of the law for the individuals to make their own legal choices and have the same rights and protections under the law.
<quoted text>
Equality under the law is key, and I don't think you possess the grey matter to offer a rational argument why same sex couples should be denied the legal protection of marriage, much less to offer a compelling governmental interest served by excluding them from such protection that would render such a restriction constitutional.
“I'll tell you what, you can keep up with the ignorance yourself.” I am not the one claiming “marriage equality” for gays, when the gay relationship is vastly different.

“Endorses equal protection of the law? That's just constitutional, kiddo.” Changing a long standing definition by judges and courts is not Constitutional, and the relationships are NOT equal.

“It is a perfectly appropriate response to juvenile and intolerant rhetoric, and you have earned, yes EARNED, every word of it.” LOL…

“No, no you don't. You frequently argue for some citizens to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.” No I don’t and that fact that you claim that I do shows more of your ignorance.
“Don't try to re-write history, your BS is on display all over the thread, and that is exactly what you have been doing.” As is yours…

“Ergo, you think you have a right to decide how I use that freedom? Guess what, kiddo, that would no longer be freedom.” Be free. Marry your same sex, but don’t expect other’s to give up their freedoms to support yours.

“Funny, the courts seem to think otherwise. The reality is that providing a service to a gay couple does not violate the rights of the baker, any more than providing the same service to someone of another race, sex, religion, etc does.” It does.“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
“Respect, tell the truth, you have routinely argued for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law. You may find this phrasing of your position to be distasteful, but that doesn't remove the reality that it is true.” I have been nothing but honest, unlike yourself, and if you can explain how the gay relationship is the SAME or EQUAL physically, mentally, and emotionally, to that of a husband and wife relationship, thereby not effecting the definition of marriage, then I will concede to you. The truth is you can’t. I am fine with gays being who they desire, but you, the government and courts tell Americans it’s EQUAL, is a lie and forcing them to that belief is unconstitutional.

“And this has what impact upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law?
Every married couple is physically unique and different. At issue is equal protection of the law for the individuals to make their own legal choices and have the same rights and protections under the law.” They have this in Colorado as civil unions and marriage which are both clearly defined… If you have what you want,“equal protection of the law” then do you support the law suit against the state by gay activists?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1664 Apr 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I am not the one claiming “marriage equality” for gays, when the gay relationship is vastly different.
Here's a clue, kiddo, equal protection under the law isn't different.
Respect71 wrote:
Changing a long standing definition by judges and courts is not Constitutional, and the relationships are NOT equal.
Actually, it is. Equality for all is the law of the land.
As for changing long standing definitions, we did away with slavery, allowed women the right to vote, and desegregated schools. Historical precedent alone is not a valid argument.
Respect71 wrote:
LOL…
I see you have no valid response. Well played.
Respect71 wrote:
No I don’t and that fact that you claim that I do shows more of your ignorance.
So long as you argue against equal protection for same sex couples, you do just that, kiddo.
Respect71 wrote:
As is yours…
I am not trying to deny anything that I have said, and have, in fact, stood behind everything I have said. You are the one trying to retreat from their words.
Respect71 wrote:
Be free. Marry your same sex, but don’t expect other’s to give up their freedoms to support yours.
Here's a clue, no one does.

Feel free to prove otherwise.
Respect71 wrote:
It does.“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Hey, kiddo, congress didn't. An enacting an anti-discrimination law doesn't violate the constitution. If you believe otherwise, offer an argument to the contrary.
Respect71 wrote:
I have been nothing but honest, unlike yourself, and if you can explain how the gay relationship is the SAME or EQUAL physically, mentally, and emotionally, to that of a husband and wife relationship, thereby not effecting the definition of marriage, then I will concede to you. The truth is you can’t. I am fine with gays being who they desire, but you, the government and courts tell Americans it’s EQUAL, is a lie and forcing them to that belief is unconstitutional.
This is about equality under the law, grow up.
Respect71 wrote:
They have this in Colorado as civil unions and marriage which are both clearly defined… If you have what you want,“equal protection of the law” then do you support the law suit against the state by gay activists?
Separate is inherently unequal. See Brown v Board of Education. What is more, civil unions are not equal to civil marriage. Only a fool would claim otherwise.

Grow a brain.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1665 Apr 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a clue, kiddo, equal protection under the law isn't different.
<quoted text>
Actually, it is. Equality for all is the law of the land.
As for changing long standing definitions, we did away with slavery, allowed women the right to vote, and desegregated schools. Historical precedent alone is not a valid argument.
<quoted text>
I see you have no valid response. Well played.
<quoted text>
So long as you argue against equal protection for same sex couples, you do just that, kiddo.
<quoted text>
I am not trying to deny anything that I have said, and have, in fact, stood behind everything I have said. You are the one trying to retreat from their words.
<quoted text>
Here's a clue, no one does.
Feel free to prove otherwise.
<quoted text>
Hey, kiddo, congress didn't. An enacting an anti-discrimination law doesn't violate the constitution. If you believe otherwise, offer an argument to the contrary.
<quoted text>
This is about equality under the law, grow up.
<quoted text>
Separate is inherently unequal. See Brown v Board of Education. What is more, civil unions are not equal to civil marriage. Only a fool would claim otherwise.
Grow a brain.
“Here's a clue, kiddo, equal protection under the law isn't different.” Marriage and “gay marriage” is vastly different.

“Actually, it is. Equality for all is the law of the land.
As for changing long standing definitions, we did away with slavery, allowed women the right to vote, and desegregated schools. Historical precedent alone is not a valid argument.” The NATURE of the relationship are a valid argument, and your dishonesty about them is sad.

“I see you have no valid response. Well played.” Why respond to a person who can’t acknowledge the truth and throw an insult because of their cluelessness?

“So long as you argue against equal protection for same sex couples, you do just that, kiddo.” I don’t argue against equal protection, which again shows your bent, but I am for clear definition which is absolutely appropriate.

“I am not trying to deny anything that I have said, and have, in fact, stood behind everything I have said. You are the one trying to retreat from their words.” LOL... That’s even more hysterical than your insults.

“Here's a clue, no one does.” Not in the case of the baker or wedding photographer, but I calk that up to your intellectual dishonesty.

“Hey, kiddo, congress didn't. An enacting an anti-discrimination law doesn't violate the constitution. If you believe otherwise, offer an argument to the contrary.” I have but you ignore it because of your bent... It’s your right to be ignorant.

“This is about equality under the law, grow up.” It’s not, and your dishonesty proves it.

“Separate is inherently unequal.” AGAIN, SHOW HOW A GAY RELATIONSHIP IS THE SAME OR EQUAL TO A HUSBAND AND WIFE RELATIONSHIP, and I will concede to you...

“See Brown v Board of Education. What is more, civil unions are not equal to civil marriage. Only a fool would claim otherwise.” Read the law and you will see that they are, so what does that make you?

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) 5 hr But But But 26,205
Looking for Robert Mendoza 5 hr Sanje 9
What would happen if the United States ever dec... (Oct '10) Tue job 214
News Kathy Sabine (Sep '07) Tue Eric 102
Denver tar (Nov '14) Tue Norman 63
News 200+ Cases of Harassment & Abuse of People of C... Tue Trumpsboy2017 34
News Support strong for assisted suicide ballot meas... Tue Ranger 24

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages