Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

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

Engaged gay couple Dave Mullins, second from left, and Charlie Craig, left, were joined by a small group of supporters in Lakewood on Aug. 4, 2012 to protest and boycott the Masterpiece Cakeshop at 3355 S. Wadsworth Blvd. The couple went to the cake shop, and the owner turned the couple away saying he would not make them a rainbow-themed wedding ... (more)

Comments
1,461 - 1,480 of 2,654 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1686
May 1, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Leviticus 19:18
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

Matthew 22:36-40
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1687
May 1, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Trigger wrote:
I have cakes made by a large company that doesn't advertise and only gets business by word of mouth, NO GAYs. They operate under the radar and make the best cakes in the world.
Leviticus 19:18
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1688
May 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is not. The law in states that allow same sex couples to marry does not make a distinction between same sex couples who marry and traditional marriage.
<quoted text>
You are the idiot claiming there are two different forms of marriage in states that allow same sex marriage. The reality is that those states simply don't discriminate against same sex couples marrying, there is no separate classification.
They need not be equal physically in order to be entitled to equality under the law. Were you not an idiot, you would understand.
<quoted text>
No, I support equality under the law for all.
See that’s a lie.
“Actually, it is not. The law in states that allow same sex couples to marry does not make a distinction between same sex couples who marry and traditional marriage.” Changing the definition.
“The reality is that those states simply don't discriminate against same sex couples marrying, there is no separate classification.” Yet the reality is that there is a separate classification based on the nature of the relationships, so government has to force a definition change.

“Sorry, kiddo, civil unions are only applicable at the state level.” More ignorance is starting you suit you. Do you need the new articles or do you really stand by your denial?

“That you are a foolish person who makes irrelevant arguments? I seriously doubt I will forget, everything you say reinforces the notion.” Based on your statements that’s not a surprise.

“I was referring to Maine, Maryland, and Washington.” So therefore what?

“You really are an idiot. Performing a service for someone with differing views in no way impacts the rights of the proprietor.” Tell that to sterling, right, or the CEO of Mozilla… And when public schools start teaching “gay marriage” because the government changed the definition of marriage and forces it, what then?

“Why do you hate the US Constitution?” The question is, why do you? I accept and acknowledge that our government will change the definition of marriage. Where will that place those who only want to bring up their families with traditional values? Government forced wedding cakes in favor of “gay marriage”, wedding photographs in favor of “gay marriage” forcing Christian teachers to teach “gay marriage” in public schools… You stand for ‘gay marriage” not our Constitution.

“Actually, it is exactly the same.” Explain how race is the SAME or equal to Sexual orientation and the Explain again how the gay relationship is the SAME as a husband and wife relationship. You intellectual dishonesty continues.

“They need not be equal physically in order to be entitled to equality under the law. Were you not an idiot, you would understand.” Sorry, but they do because of the definition… You lie about “marriage equality” and charge government with changing the definition, and they mindlessly blurt “equal protection under the law”.

“No, I support equality under the law for all.” < my point is made.
Trigger

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1689
May 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Wow you mustt think you might turn gay if you eat a cake made by a company that will serve anyone.
Enjoy your little country club; just don't get mad when you end up alone. People of faith are seeing the real brand of "religious liberty" you folks are trying top pass off as decent and good and they see what a crock of BS it is.
Since when was Gayism decent and good?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1690
May 2, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Respect71 wrote:
See that’s a lie.
Respect71 wrote:
“Actually, it is not. The law in states that allow same sex couples to marry does not make a distinction between same sex couples who marry and traditional marriage.” Changing the definition.
Respect71 wrote:
“The reality is that those states simply don't discriminate against same sex couples marrying, there is no separate classification.” Yet the reality is that there is a separate classification based on the nature of the relationships, so government has to force a definition change.
Respect71 wrote:
More ignorance is starting you suit you. Do you need the new articles or do you really stand by your denial?
Feel free to offer articles that support your assertion, I don't think you can.
Respect71 wrote:
Based on your statements that’s not a surprise.
Actually, my opinion is based on your unsubstantiated statements.
Respect71 wrote:
So therefore what?
So therefore three states have passed marriage equality on a popular vote.

Can you not keep up with simple concepts? If not, you certainly won't understand that the US Supreme Court has held that fundamental rights, like marriage, may not be put to a vote. Check out West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette.

You see, I can back my opinion with facts, as opposed to implying that there are articles that support my position.
Respect71 wrote:
Tell that to sterling, right, or the CEO of Mozilla…
The one who resigned of his own free will.
Respect71 wrote:
And when public schools start teaching “gay marriage” because the government changed the definition of marriage and forces it, what then?
No school is teaching gay marriage, although some admit it exists, which is factual. You would prefer schools teach fiction, or religion?
Respect71 wrote:
The question is, why do you? I accept and acknowledge that our government will change the definition of marriage. Where will that place those who only want to bring up their families with traditional values? Government forced wedding cakes in favor of “gay marriage”, wedding photographs in favor of “gay marriage” forcing Christian teachers to teach “gay marriage” in public schools… You stand for ‘gay marriage” not our Constitution.
I don't hate the constitution. I support the notion of equality under the law.

You are the one arguing for others to be able to project their religious moral onto others thereby reducing religious freedom, and freedom in general.
Respect71 wrote:
Explain how race is the SAME or equal to Sexual orientation and the Explain again how the gay relationship is the SAME as a husband and wife relationship. You intellectual dishonesty continues.
Simple, both were denied equality under the law absent any rational reason.
Respect71 wrote:
Sorry, but they do because of the definition… You lie about “marriage equality” and charge government with changing the definition, and they mindlessly blurt “equal protection under the law”.
Let me help, if the definition as it exists is unconstitutional it should be changed.

You seem too dumb to offer any compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry.
Respect71 wrote:
< my point is made.
Only if your point is that you are a bigoted imbecile.
The Troll Stopper

Christiansburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1691
May 3, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Trigger wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when was Gayism decent and good?
In case you didn't know, bub, every respected medical and mental-health organization on the planet agrees that homosexuality is a perfectly natural variant of sexuality, isn't a choice and can't be changed, and poses no threat whatsoever to anyone. Since these organizations also have the peer-reviewed research to back it all up, I'll gladly take their word for it over the word of a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Neanderthal bigot like you any old day of the week, boy.

P.S.: Using phony words like "Gayism" won't help your credibility any.
Trigger

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1692
May 4, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you didn't know, bub, every respected medical and mental-health organization on the planet agrees that homosexuality is a perfectly natural variant of sexuality, isn't a choice and can't be changed, and poses no threat whatsoever to anyone. Since these organizations also have the peer-reviewed research to back it all up, I'll gladly take their word for it over the word of a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Neanderthal bigot like you any old day of the week, boy.
P.S.: Using phony words like "Gayism" won't help your credibility any.
Gayism, when you have sex in a non-traditional way. Like use the rectum like a vagina. Anal sex causes AIDS causing the premature death of ALL Gays. Any health care professional will tell you anal sex is UNHEALTHY and WILL lead to illness and death.

IF Gayism were the only perversion 100 years ago NONE of us would be here today!!

NONE!!

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1693
May 5, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Trigger wrote:
Gayism, when you have sex in a non-traditional way. Like use the rectum like a vagina.
You should get after the straight people, because the majority of anal sex, isn't gay.

Were you not an idiot, you might understand that.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1694
May 5, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Feel free to offer articles that support your assertion, I don't think you can.
<quoted text>
Actually, my opinion is based on your unsubstantiated statements.
<quoted text>
So therefore three states have passed marriage equality on a popular vote.
Can you not keep up with simple concepts? If not, you certainly won't understand that the US Supreme Court has held that fundamental rights, like marriage, may not be put to a vote. Check out West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette.
You see, I can back my opinion with facts, as opposed to implying that there are articles that support my position.
<quoted text>
The one who resigned of his own free will.
<quoted text>
No school is teaching gay marriage, although some admit it exists, which is factual. You would prefer schools teach fiction, or religion?
<quoted text>
I don't hate the constitution. I support the notion of equality under the law.
You are the one arguing for others to be able to project their religious moral onto others thereby reducing religious freedom, and freedom in general.
<quoted text>
Simple, both were denied equality under the law absent any rational reason.
<quoted text>
Let me help, if the definition as it exists is unconstitutional it should be changed.
You seem too dumb to offer any compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry.
<quoted text>
Only if your point is that you are a bigoted imbecile.
Under the lie of “marriage equality” you are getting “gay marriage” in America.
This is fact.
So you draw the line. When is it inappropriate for government to force individuals to support “Gay marriage”? Since government will endorse,“gay marriage” should it be taught in public schools? Is that a Constitutional violation despite new law redefining marriage to fit gays?
Please… Draw the line and keep individual Liberty in mind.
Trigger

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1695
May 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You should get after the straight people, because the majority of anal sex, isn't gay.
Were you not an idiot, you might understand that.
If that is the case then why is AIDS prevalent in gays?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1696
May 6, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Respect71 wrote:
Under the lie of “marriage equality” you are getting “gay marriage” in America.
This is fact.
No, the only fact here is that you are an ignorant and bigoted moron who doesn't understand the law.
Respect71 wrote:
So you draw the line.
Actually, you are the one suffering from the delusion that same sex marriage is legally distinct from traditional marriage. It is not, the same legal rights, protections, and status apply. States that allow same sex marriage do not have two separate definitions of marriage, they simply include all of their citizens in the legal protections of marriage.
Respect71 wrote:
When is it inappropriate for government to force individuals to support “Gay marriage”?
When is it inappropriate to let racist business owners not serve someone of a race they disapprove of?

Face it, kiddo, anti-discriminations laws have regularly been held constitutional, and necessary in courts of law. An individual business owner does not have the right to deny service on the basis of their own animus or bigotry.
Respect71 wrote:
Since government will endorse,“gay marriage” should it be taught in public schools?
This question is utterly irrelevant. It is not taught in schools anywhere, and the few idiotic cases dealing with courses addressing diversity for the purpose of negating bullying that have made this insane claim have lost in court. In part because the claim itself is insane. Acknowledging that same sex relationships occur, and instilling in children that people who are different from them are still deserving of basic respect is in no way teaching "gay marriage". Only an idiot could make such a claim.
Respect71 wrote:
Is that a Constitutional violation despite new law redefining marriage to fit gays?
Well, seeing as you have been unable to make the fundamental argument that anything of the sort is actually happening, it can't be unconstitutional. It would be if it were happening, but it isn't happening.

Get a grip.
Respect71 wrote:
Please… Draw the line and keep individual Liberty in mind.
Here's the problem, kiddo. You don't give a crap about individual liberty. In fact, you regularly argue against it for anyone whose views are not directly in line with your own.

The courts have regularly held in the cases of business owners being sued for denying service to couples for same sex weddings that they did not have the ability to do so. They have further pointed out that providing such a service is in no way a violation of the proprietor's free exercise of religion, nor is it a violation of their free speech. The Colorado court even went so far as to indicate that providing the service was a net windfall for the business, as they would be compensated for said service.

On the whole, every point you have made in this post makes you look even dumber than you already did, and that is really saying something.
The Troll Stopper

Christiansburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1697
May 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Trigger wrote:
<quoted text>
Gayism, when you have sex in a non-traditional way. Like use yap yap yap blah blah blah yada yada yada...
Please cite your source for this definition, or admit you just pulled that out of your ass.

Oh and BTW, I notice you made no attempt whatsoever to challenge my statement of the fact that every respected medical and mental-health organization worldwide agrees that homosexuality is perfectly natural and poses no threat to anyone. I guess that means you've decided to concede that point. Smart move on your part, bigot boy.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1698
May 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the only fact here is that you are an ignorant and bigoted moron who doesn't understand the law.
<quoted text>
Actually, you are the one suffering from the delusion that same sex marriage is legally distinct from traditional marriage. It is not, the same legal rights, protections, and status apply. States that allow same sex marriage do not have two separate definitions of marriage, they simply include all of their citizens in the legal protections of marriage.
<quoted text>
When is it inappropriate to let racist business owners not serve someone of a race they disapprove of?
Face it, kiddo, anti-discriminations laws have regularly been held constitutional, and necessary in courts of law. An individual business owner does not have the right to deny service on the basis of their own animus or bigotry.
<quoted text>
This question is utterly irrelevant. It is not taught in schools anywhere, and the few idiotic cases dealing with courses addressing diversity for the purpose of negating bullying that have made this insane claim have lost in court. In part because the claim itself is insane. Acknowledging that same sex relationships occur, and instilling in children that people who are different from them are still deserving of basic respect is in no way teaching "gay marriage". Only an idiot could make such a claim.
<quoted text>
Well, seeing as you have been unable to make the fundamental argument that anything of the sort is actually happening, it can't be unconstitutional. It would be if it were happening, but it isn't happening.
Get a grip.
<quoted text>
Here's the problem, kiddo. You don't give a crap about individual liberty. In fact, you regularly argue against it for anyone whose views are not directly in line with your own.
The courts have regularly held in the cases of business owners being sued for denying service to couples for same sex weddings that they did not have the ability to do so. They have further pointed out that providing such a service is in no way a violation of the proprietor's free exercise of religion, nor is it a violation of their free speech. The Colorado court even went so far as to indicate that providing the service was a net windfall for the business, as they would be compensated for said service.
On the whole, every point you have made in this post makes you look even dumber than you already did, and that is really saying something.
What a surprise more insults, I sit in disbelief.

The government has to REDEFINE marriage in order for the law to include gays. If there was NO distinction then why does marriage have to be REDEFINED? This is where your intellectual honesty is astounding.

Because you, yourself can’t have be honest a draw specific lines, it is not blatantly obvious you have no regard for our Constitution and those who don’t agree with redefining marriage.

AGAIN, the fact is that the government will REDEFINE marriage to include gays, and I asked you specifically to draw the line.
Can people with faith or even without faith, disagree with “gay marriage” at all?
How important is it for government to FORCE Americans to use their talents in support of “gay marriage”?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1699
May 6, 2014
 
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
What a surprise more insults, I sit in disbelief.
The government has to REDEFINE marriage in order for the law to include gays. If there was NO distinction then why does marriage have to be REDEFINED? This is where your intellectual honesty is astounding.
Because you, yourself can’t have be honest a draw specific lines, it is not blatantly obvious you have no regard for our Constitution and those who don’t agree with redefining marriage.
AGAIN, the fact is that the government will REDEFINE marriage to include gays, and I asked you specifically to draw the line.
Can people with faith or even without faith, disagree with “gay marriage” at all?
How important is it for government to FORCE Americans to use their talents in support of “gay marriage”?
Your "religious" beliefs do not exempt you from following the law. End of story.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1700
May 6, 2014
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Your "religious" beliefs do not exempt you from following the law. End of story.

The story starts with the First Amendment! Laws have been abolished because of our Constitution.

When the law forces one to support something that goes against ones religious belief it stands to reason that law should be abolished.

You want government to force Americans to think like you and that is unconstitutional.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1701
May 6, 2014
 
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The story starts with the First Amendment! Laws have been abolished because of our Constitution.
Not anti-discrimination laws.
Respect71 wrote:
When the law forces one to support something that goes against ones religious belief it stands to reason that law should be abolished.
Think about what you're saying. No one would have to follow any laws if this were true; they'd simply claim the law was against their religious belief.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1702
May 6, 2014
 
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The story starts with the First Amendment! Laws have been abolished because of our Constitution.
When the law forces one to support something that goes against ones religious belief it stands to reason that law should be abolished.
You want government to force Americans to think like you and that is unconstitutional.
You are incorrect (big surprise). You may think whatever you want. SCOTUS has already ruled on this many years ago.

The question presented by this case, however, does not involve an effort by the government to regulate what Respondents believe. Rather, it involves the state’s regulation of conduct; specifically, Respondents’ refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage due to a religious conviction that same-sex marriage is abhorrent to God. Whether regulation of conduct is permissible depends very much upon the facts of the case.
The types of conduct the United States Supreme Court has found to be beyond government control typically involve activities fundamental to the individual’s religious belief, that do not adversely affect the rights of others, and that are not outweighed by the state’s legitimate interests in promoting health, safety and general welfare. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1703
May 6, 2014
 
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
When the law forces one to support something that goes against ones religious belief it stands to reason that law should be abolished.
What if the religious belief entails breaking another law? Child sacrifice is big in religions.
Beauty QUEEN

Croydon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1704
May 7, 2014
 
Trigger wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is the case then why is AIDS prevalent in gays?
It is mre prevalent in blacks ...

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1705
May 7, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Not anti-discrimination laws.
<quoted text>
Think about what you're saying. No one would have to follow any laws if this were true; they'd simply claim the law was against their religious belief.
“Not anti-discrimination laws.” They will when they discriminate against religious freedom.

“Think about what you're saying. No one would have to follow any laws if this were true; they'd simply claim the law was against their religious belief.” The problem is you are so bent on “gay rights” that you choose to ignore American rights.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
Denver Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Denver Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••