Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 17,646

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)

Read more

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1729 May 9, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> I have no argument? Honey, this argument was resolved almost 25 years ago. Tell me.... do you re-invent the wheel every day when you get up, or do you learn from history?
The government doesn't give a flying fuck about what you believe. Their only concern is your conduct. Break the law, suffer the consequences.
There was a baker that revered a wedding cake for only a husband and wife 25 years ago?

“The government doesn't give a flying fuck about what you believe. Their only concern is your conduct. Break the law, suffer the consequences.” If you statement is true then why the first Amendment hasn’t been amended? That is the ONLY way in which government cannot care about one’s religious belief.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1730 May 9, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be a freedom of speech issue, dumbass. Not the same thing. In this case, nothing..... I repeat, NOTHING was discussed about "words on the cake."
Nice dodge! More examples of your intellectual dishonesty and your rude distain for Americans who don’t believe as you do.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1731 May 9, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
What a surprise more insults, I sit in disbelief.
Well, what can I say? You have earned them.
Respect71 wrote:
The government has to REDEFINE marriage in order for the law to include gays.
Of course, at question is whether the definition constricting marriage to being between opposite sex couples is constitutional.
Respect71 wrote:
If there was NO distinction then why does marriage have to be REDEFINED?
Because the current definition is unconstitutional.
Respect71 wrote:
This is where your intellectual honesty is astounding.
This is where your stupidity really shines.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
Actually, I am defending the US Constitution, and it's guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.
Respect71 wrote:
AGAIN, the fact is that the government will REDEFINE marriage to include gays, and I asked you specifically to draw the line.
Such a redefinition is in accordance with the guarantee of equal protection.

The line is already legally drawn. The government may infringe upon constitutional rights, like equality under the law, when doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. You have offered no such interest in denying same sex couples equality under the law to marry.
Respect71 wrote:
Can people with faith or even without faith, disagree with “gay marriage” at all?
Sure. It's a free country and you are entitled to the free exercise of religion, as well as free speech. However, you may not make other abide by your religious moral views, or to use your religious moral views as the basis of law.

Those who disagree with same sex marriage are free not to marry someone of the same sex.

Do you see how easy that concept is?
Respect71 wrote:
How important is it for government to FORCE Americans to use their talents in support of “gay marriage”?
Dear imbecile,
The courts have consistently ruled that providing services for such occasions does not rise to the level of endorsement, nor does providing the service infringe upon free exercise of religion or free speech. They have also routinely held that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional.

You have the right to free speech, you have the freedom to exercise the religion of your choosing, you don't have the right to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. Get over it, bigoted moron.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1732 May 9, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
For a husband and wife.
It's a cake. It can be sold to anyone. You do not get to say your products are on for straight people, or only for white people, or only for men.
Respect71 wrote:
LOL… If the gay baker refuses to write the statement on the cake then he breaks the law and faces fines and jail, discriminating against the customer.
Wrong. Anti-discrimination laws do not include the product content.
Respect71 wrote:
You are either blatantly ignorant or sorely uneducated. Please cite the official document that states,““Marriage IS a government institution.”
Here are all the state marriage laws: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage
Respect71 wrote:
Explain how not serving a wedding cake is forcing a belief upon the gay couple, then explain how suing the baker for the gay couple isn’t forcing their views upon him.
It's putting the baker's religious beliefs over a law.
The gay couple isn't asking the baker to change beliefs, but actions, to align with a reasonable law.
Respect71 wrote:
“Slaveowners believed that slavery was their moral right ordained by God. When slavery was banned, was their religious freedom violated?” Slavery is not the same as reserving a wedding cake for husband and wife.
It's the same principle.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1733 May 9, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do understand that I am FOR “gay marriage”, so please explain how that is “anti-liberty.”.
When have you ever been for gay marriage?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1734 May 9, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You do understand that I am FOR “gay marriage”, so please explain how that is “anti-liberty.”.
You have repeatedly argued against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry, lying troll.
You can call me Dick

United States

#1735 May 9, 2014
If I go to a Plastic Surgeon for a Breast Augmentation and I am refused that surgery because I am a male have I been discriminated against?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1736 May 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what can I say? You have earned them.
<quoted text>
Of course, at question is whether the definition constricting marriage to being between opposite sex couples is constitutional.
<quoted text>
Because the current definition is unconstitutional.
<quoted text>
This is where your stupidity really shines.
<quoted text>
Actually, I am defending the US Constitution, and it's guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.
<quoted text>
Such a redefinition is in accordance with the guarantee of equal protection.
The line is already legally drawn. The government may infringe upon constitutional rights, like equality under the law, when doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. You have offered no such interest in denying same sex couples equality under the law to marry.
<quoted text>
Sure. It's a free country and you are entitled to the free exercise of religion, as well as free speech. However, you may not make other abide by your religious moral views, or to use your religious moral views as the basis of law.
Those who disagree with same sex marriage are free not to marry someone of the same sex.
Do you see how easy that concept is?
<quoted text>
Dear imbecile,
The courts have consistently ruled that providing services for such occasions does not rise to the level of endorsement, nor does providing the service infringe upon free exercise of religion or free speech. They have also routinely held that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional.
You have the right to free speech, you have the freedom to exercise the religion of your choosing, you don't have the right to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. Get over it, bigoted moron.
“Of course, at question is whether the definition constricting marriage to being between opposite sex couples is constitutional.” The question is can you be honest about the relationship enough to define what it is for itself.

“Because the current definition is unconstitutional.” It’s not.

“Actually, I am defending the US Constitution, and it's guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.” No you are lying about equality, trying to make 1+1= 11, and redefining an equation that doesn’t fit, you don’t have the courage to own up to defining “gay marriage” for what it is.

“Such a redefinition is in accordance with the guarantee of equal protection.” It’s not because of the inequality.

“The line is already legally drawn. The government may infringe upon constitutional rights, like equality under the law, when doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. You have offered no such interest in denying same sex couples equality under the law to marry.” Gays can marry and if they want to be with their same sex thats “gay marry”

“Sure. It's a free country and you are entitled to the free exercise of religion, as well as free speech. However, you may not make other abide by your religious moral views, or to use your religious moral views as the basis of law.” I agree, so now explain how reserving talents for a wedding made the gay couple abide by any religious or moral view? Now you will lie some more and spew law speak and ignore that you CAN’T HONESTLY answer that question because you are for government to force peole to your view.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1737 May 10, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a cake. It can be sold to anyone. You do not get to say your products are on for straight people, or only for white people, or only for men.
<quoted text>
Wrong. Anti-discrimination laws do not include the product content.
<quoted text>
Here are all the state marriage laws: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage
<quoted text>
It's putting the baker's religious beliefs over a law.
The gay couple isn't asking the baker to change beliefs, but actions, to align with a reasonable law.
<quoted text>
It's the same principle.
“It's a cake. It can be sold to anyone. You do not get to say your products are on for straight people, or only for white people, or only for men.” And you don’t get to force someone to use their talents to support an institution they don’t believe in.
Respect71 wrote:

“Wrong. Anti-discrimination laws do not include the product content.” So you will force that gay baker to write the word on the cake? I give you points of consistency.

“Here are all the state marriage laws: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage ” There are law for driving a car too. Is driving a government institution? Do you run a business? There are laws for that as well but still not a government institution... It belongs to you. So you are claiming you are uneducated.

“It's putting the baker's religious beliefs over a law.”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

“The gay couple isn't asking the baker to change beliefs, but actions, to align with a reasonable law.” Obviously they were, because they sued.

“It's the same principle.” Not even close.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1738 May 10, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
When have you ever been for gay marriage?
Since always. I want gays to be with who ever they desire, as do many Americans, and in doing so Americans should be honest about their relationship.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1739 May 10, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You have repeatedly argued against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry, lying troll.
You are the one who argues “marriage equality” which is a lie, based on the very nature of the relationship. I’m the only one calling a spade a spade while you try to cal a spade a rake.

Colorado has it right in regards to “gay marriage”.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1740 May 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The question is can you be honest about the relationship enough to define what it is for itself.
The reality is that you have no valid argument, which is why you idiotically keep returning to definitions.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s not.
Funny, you have been utterly incapable of supporting that opinion with facts.
Respect71 wrote:
No you are lying about equality, trying to make 1+1= 11, and redefining an equation that doesn’t fit, you don’t have the courage to own up to defining “gay marriage” for what it is.
No, I am simply arguing that one man and one woman is equal to one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Two, people equals two people. Not 11. This is, perhaps, the stupidest argument you have made yet.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s not because of the inequality.
So, treating people as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law is not inequality? Don't be an idiot.
Respect71 wrote:
Gays can marry and if they want to be with their same sex thats “gay marry”
You have already proven that you are dumb, but this is a new low. In most jurisdictions, same sex couples may not marry. To say that they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is irrational. If the tables were reversed, and only same sex marriage were allowed, would you think it was fair that someone made the argument that although you were heterosexual you had equal protection of the law to marry someone of the same sex even though you were not attracted to them? Of course not, you would think that the person making that argument was an irrational imbecile.
Respect71 wrote:
I agree, so now explain how reserving talents for a wedding made the gay couple abide by any religious or moral view?
Sometimes a cake is just a cake. It isn't an expression of free speech or free exercise of religion. It is certainly not an endorsement of the event at which it will be consumed.
Respect71 wrote:
Now you will lie some more and spew law speak and ignore that you CAN’T HONESTLY answer that question because you are for government to force peole to your view.
I've already said that the government cannot, nor does allowing same sex marriage, force people to accept anything. Integration was tremendously unpopular, and didn't gain popular acceptance for nearly 30 years after it was enacted.

This isn't about popular support, but rather equality under the law.

It's worthy of note, stupid person, that same sex marriage already has popular support.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/suppor...

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1741 May 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You are the one who argues “marriage equality” which is a lie, based on the very nature of the relationship.
The same argument could have been, and was, made of interracial marriage. It was as incompetent and irrelevant then as it is now.
Respect71 wrote:
I’m the only one calling a spade a spade while you try to cal a spade a rake.
Interesting that you should choose that terminology.
Respect71 wrote:
Colorado has it right in regards to “gay marriage”.
Colorado governs Colorado, they make their own choices, but are still beholden to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equality under the law.

Currently they allow same sex civil unions, which provide most of the state benefits of marriage, but are not recognized by the federal government.

I doubt it will be long before Colorado has same sex marriage.

Do you know why? Because the majority of Americans support equality, and idiots like yourself have no valid arguments against legal equality, which is why you return to definitions and claim the relationships are unequal.

What an idiot you are. No two relationships are equal.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1742 May 10, 2014
You can call me Dick wrote:
<quoted text>
You go to the Findings of Fact. I'll make it easy for you skip to one that starts with the number 9. The smoking gun for my argument!
Game set and match goes to Dick
9. The next day, Ms. Munn called Masterpiece Cakeshop and spoke with Phillips. Phillips advised Ms. Munn that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, and because Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages.

And somehow you think that supports calling a wedding cake art would lead to a different outcome? Mkay.........
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1743 May 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice dodge! More examples of your intellectual dishonesty and your rude distain for Americans who don’t believe as you do.
Not a dodge. It's a separate issue. It's even mentioned in the decision. You would know that if you had read it.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1744 May 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
A wedding cake isn’t neutral.
Dear god you are such a dullard.......... the LAW is neutral! JESUS!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1745 May 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a baker that revered a wedding cake for only a husband and wife 25 years ago?
“The government doesn't give a flying fuck about what you believe. Their only concern is your conduct. Break the law, suffer the consequences.” If you statement is true then why the first Amendment hasn’t been amended? That is the ONLY way in which government cannot care about one’s religious belief.
There is no point in arguing with you. You don't even have a basic grasp of the facts.

SCOTUS determine what the constitution means, NOT YOU.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1746 May 10, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Dick,
Read the damn decision. The First Amendment issue is discussed. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
Thank you.

Isn't it time this thread died? Give it up Respect1. Your guy lost. Keep it up and some of us may change the topic of the thread to the number of organizations and Political candidates your faction supports who have LOST. And I say faction because that is what you are. You and yours are no longer a majority. Get used to it.

The guy was convicted. There is no appeal. He was convicted of violating a law VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE. A State law no less.

(Though if you want to still support him, his website does still have a link to contribute to his legal expenses (which were already paid by a 3rd party. So much for deeply held PERSONAL religious beliefs)

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1747 May 12, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The reality is that you have no valid argument, which is why you idiotically keep returning to definitions.
<quoted text>
Funny, you have been utterly incapable of supporting that opinion with facts.
<quoted text>
No, I am simply arguing that one man and one woman is equal to one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.
Two, people equals two people. Not 11. This is, perhaps, the stupidest argument you have made yet.
<quoted text>
So, treating people as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law is not inequality? Don't be an idiot.
<quoted text>
You have already proven that you are dumb, but this is a new low. In most jurisdictions, same sex couples may not marry. To say that they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is irrational. If the tables were reversed, and only same sex marriage were allowed, would you think it was fair that someone made the argument that although you were heterosexual you had equal protection of the law to marry someone of the same sex even though you were not attracted to them? Of course not, you would think that the person making that argument was an irrational imbecile.
<quoted text>
Sometimes a cake is just a cake. It isn't an expression of free speech or free exercise of religion. It is certainly not an endorsement of the event at which it will be consumed.
<quoted text>
I've already said that the government cannot, nor does allowing same sex marriage, force people to accept anything. Integration was tremendously unpopular, and didn't gain popular acceptance for nearly 30 years after it was enacted.
This isn't about popular support, but rather equality under the law.
It's worthy of note, stupid person, that same sex marriage already has popular support.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/suppor...
“The reality is that you have no valid argument, which is why you idiotically keep returning to definitions.” Reality is you ignore the deffinitions.

“Funny, you have been utterly incapable of supporting that opinion with facts.” Funny, because bakers, photographers and CEOs of companies keep getting punished because they hold their view.

“No, I am simply arguing that one man and one woman is equal to one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.” Explain how.

“So, treating people as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law is not inequality? Don't be an idiot.” Explain how.

“Sometimes a cake is just a cake.” I wedding cake is a wedding cake… More ignorants of definitions isn’t shocking.

“It isn't an expression of free speech or free exercise of religion. It is certainly not an endorsement of the event at which it will be consumed.” Who’s name will be on the wedding cake on the “gay wedding”?

“Gay marriage” is coming to America. Are you going to be the one to force Americans to believe as you and charge government to punish them otherwise?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1748 May 12, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The same argument could have been, and was, made of interracial marriage. It was as incompetent and irrelevant then as it is now.
<quoted text>
Interesting that you should choose that terminology.
<quoted text>
Colorado governs Colorado, they make their own choices, but are still beholden to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equality under the law.
Currently they allow same sex civil unions, which provide most of the state benefits of marriage, but are not recognized by the federal government.
I doubt it will be long before Colorado has same sex marriage.
Do you know why? Because the majority of Americans support equality, and idiots like yourself have no valid arguments against legal equality, which is why you return to definitions and claim the relationships are unequal.
What an idiot you are. No two relationships are equal.
“The same argument could have been, and was, made of interracial marriage. It was as incompetent and irrelevant then as it is now.“ No, it’s not the same argument, and for you to claim otherwise as more intellectual dishonesty.

“Interesting that you should choose that terminology.” More telling that you don’t deny it.

“Currently they allow same sex civil unions, which provide most of the state benefits of marriage, but are not recognized by the federal government.” That’s a lie.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/08/politics/holder...

“What an idiot you are. No two relationships are equal.” I have always said I would concede to your point when you can explain how the gay relationship is the SAME or EQUAL to a husband and wife relationship. Yet you spew “No two relationships are equal.” Which you know we are not talking about individual relationships.

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
Online Slut 48 min tippytiptip 3
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 1 hr Respect71 16,932
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 1 hr Respect71 1,555
Suspended by eBay? Grassroots effort at Former ... 5 hr Jeffrey Wolf 1
News Kathy Sabine (Sep '07) Thu Ravenite Coffee 33
News Colorado commission examining health-care costs... Wed Elise Gingerich 1
News Denver police fatally shoot teen girl suspect; ... Mar 24 Archie Bunker 9
Denver Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]