Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 46433 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

#1749 May 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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)
If I have lost then so have you and all your friends.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1750 May 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
And you don’t get to force someone to use their talents to support an institution they don’t believe in.
I'm not. Selling someone a product isn't supporting an institution.
Respect71 wrote:
So you will force that gay baker to write the word on the cake? I give you points of consistency.
No one can be forced to write any message they do not want to write.
Respect71 wrote:
“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?
Marriage is a legal contract maintained and enforced by the government. It's a government institution.

You're trying to argue against basic facts.
Respect71 wrote:
“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;”
Free exercise of religion doesn't allow you to break laws. Can I murder you if my religion says human sacrifices are important?
Respect71 wrote:
“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.
They sued so the baker would follow the law, not change his beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
“It's the same principle.” Not even close.
What's different about it?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1751 May 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Allowing gay people to be together, and letting them marry are two separate issues.

You support a gay couple's right to get married?
You can call me Dick

Gering, NE

#1753 May 12, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
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.........
My apologies,
I am not able to determine if you refuse to, or if I unable dumb it down enough for you comprehend,
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1754 May 12, 2014
You can call me Dick wrote:
<quoted text>
My apologies,
I am not able to determine if you refuse to, or if I unable dumb it down enough for you comprehend,
Your inability to make your own point isn't my fault.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1755 May 12, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not. Selling someone a product isn't supporting an institution.
<quoted text>
No one can be forced to write any message they do not want to write.
<quoted text>
Marriage is a legal contract maintained and enforced by the government. It's a government institution.
You're trying to argue against basic facts.
<quoted text>
Free exercise of religion doesn't allow you to break laws. Can I murder you if my religion says human sacrifices are important?
<quoted text>
They sued so the baker would follow the law, not change his beliefs.
<quoted text>
What's different about it?
“Selling someone a product isn't supporting an institution.” It is when the talents are used for an institution that the individual doesn’t believe in otherwise churches could be forced to persom gay marriage ceremonies as well.

“No one can be forced to write any message they do not want to write.” Why? That’s what hes being hire for… Denying them would be discrimination. You can’t have it both ways.

“Marriage is a legal contract maintained and enforced by the government. It's a government institution.” You need an education. Just because there are laws around marriage doesn’t make it a government institution. Just like business contracts and tariffs.

“You're trying to argue against basic facts.” You are making FALSE arguments.

“Free exercise of religion doesn't allow you to break laws. Can I murder you if my religion says human sacrifices are important?” You can if I was in my mother’s womb and she paid you to do it.

“They sued so the baker would follow the law, not change his beliefs.” Really? Doubtful.

“What's different about it?” Explain how owning a slave is the same at reserving a wedding cake for husband and wife?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1756 May 12, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing gay people to be together, and letting them marry are two separate issues.
You support a gay couple's right to get married?
Yes I do. "gay marriage"
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1757 May 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Selling someone a product isn't supporting an institution.” It is when the talents are used for an institution that the individual doesn’t believe in otherwise churches could be forced to persom gay marriage ceremonies as well.
Churches aren't businesses; they're private clubs, essentially. They aren't subject to any anti-discrimination laws.
Respect71 wrote:
Why? That’s what hes being hire for… Denying them would be discrimination. You can’t have it both ways.
Anti-discrimination laws are about the *customer*, not the *product*. I have been over this with you multiple times.

The gay couple did not come into the bakery and ask for a wedding cake that says "gay marriage is awesome" on it. They simply asked for a wedding cake. The baker already makes wedding cakes, so that is clearly a product he makes. If they wanted a "gay marriage is awesome" cake, he could refuse to make it.
Respect71 wrote:
You need an education. Just because there are laws around marriage doesn’t make it a government institution.
The laws created the institution. Without the laws, no one would be debating about anything because it would simply be a personal label that anyone could slap on anything.
Respect71 wrote:
You can if I was in my mother’s womb and she paid you to do it.
<rolls eyes>

Try to stay on topic. If my religion says I should do X, does that mean that no one can make a law that is against X without violating my first amendment rights?

If my religion says it is important to steal, are theft laws anti-constitutional?
Respect71 wrote:

“They sued so the baker would follow the law, not change his beliefs.” Really? Doubtful.
How is that doubtful? It's EXPLICIT in the law and the lawsuit.
Respect71 wrote:

Explain how owning a slave is the same at reserving a wedding cake for husband and wife?
Christian baker: I don't want to serve gay people. My religion says I can discriminate.
Law: You cannot discriminate against gay people.
Christian baker: The law is violating my religion.

Christian slaveowner: I don't want to release my slaves. My religion says I can own slaves.
Law: You cannot own slaves.
Christian slaveowner: The law is violating my religion.

If one law is violating religious beliefs, then the other is too.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1758 May 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do. "gay marriage"
Why is "gay marriage" in quotes?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1760 May 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Reality is you ignore the deffinitions.
Only those that are unconstitutional.
Respect71 wrote:
Funny, because bakers, photographers and CEOs of companies keep getting punished because they hold their view.
The baker and photographer broke the law (this was decided by the courts), and the CEO made their own choice of their own free will.
Respect71 wrote:
Explain how.
Simple, two people = two people.
Respect71 wrote:
Explain how.
Denying same sex couples equality under the law to marry is treating them as second class citizens.
Respect71 wrote:
I wedding cake is a wedding cake… More ignorants of definitions isn’t shocking.
And it is wedding cake regardless of who is being wed, and regardless of who is being wed it doesn't violate the free exercise or free speech of the baker. Get over it.
Respect71 wrote:
Who’s name will be on the wedding cake on the “gay wedding”?
No one's, unless it is a terribly tacky wedding.
Respect71 wrote:
“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?
Get a clue, kiddo. Equality under the law is coming. It has happened before, and doesn't require majority acceptance. Although the US Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage, the majority didn't accept that until almost 30 years later. The law doesn't change what people can or should accept, it changes how people are treated as a matter of law.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1762 May 13, 2014
lides wrote:
Denying same sex couples equality under the law to marry is treating them as second class citizens.
Then that applies to anyone who is denied the right to marry.
In your state two first cousins can marry but you can't marry your mother, yet.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1763 May 13, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Then that applies to anyone who is denied the right to marry.
In your state two first cousins can marry but you can't marry your mother, yet.
Wondering, are you smart enough to understand that the state may intervene in constitutional rights, including equality under the law, if doing so serves a compelling governmental interest?

If you are smart, you will figure this out. If not, I will be more than happy to correct you once you make the mistake.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1764 May 13, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Churches aren't businesses; they're private clubs, essentially. They aren't subject to any anti-discrimination laws.
<quoted text>
Anti-discrimination laws are about the *customer*, not the *product*. I have been over this with you multiple times.
The gay couple did not come into the bakery and ask for a wedding cake that says "gay marriage is awesome" on it. They simply asked for a wedding cake. The baker already makes wedding cakes, so that is clearly a product he makes. If they wanted a "gay marriage is awesome" cake, he could refuse to make it.
<quoted text>
The laws created the institution. Without the laws, no one would be debating about anything because it would simply be a personal label that anyone could slap on anything.
<quoted text>
<rolls eyes>
Try to stay on topic. If my religion says I should do X, does that mean that no one can make a law that is against X without violating my first amendment rights?
If my religion says it is important to steal, are theft laws anti-constitutional?
<quoted text>
How is that doubtful? It's EXPLICIT in the law and the lawsuit.
<quoted text>
Christian baker: I don't want to serve gay people. My religion says I can discriminate.
Law: You cannot discriminate against gay people.
Christian baker: The law is violating my religion.
Christian slaveowner: I don't want to release my slaves. My religion says I can own slaves.
Law: You cannot own slaves.
Christian slaveowner: The law is violating my religion.
If one law is violating religious beliefs, then the other is too.
“Churches aren't businesses; they're private clubs, essentially. They aren't subject to any anti-discrimination laws.” So religious freedom only applies to churches?

“Anti-discrimination laws are about the *customer*, not the *product*. I have been over this with you multiple times.

The gay couple did not come into the bakery and ask for a wedding cake that says "gay marriage is awesome" on it. They simply asked for a wedding cake. The baker already makes wedding cakes, so that is clearly a product he makes. If they wanted a "gay marriage is awesome" cake, he could refuse to make it.” How is that? How does the symbolism change with words rather than without?

“The laws created the institution.” Are you ignorant or seriously uneducated? The institution has been long before the laws… The IRS is a government institution, marriage is not. Your claim is false.

“Without the laws, no one would be debating about anything because it would simply be a personal label that anyone could slap on anything.” Your are correct, and more the reason why government should get out of marriage, would you agree? But it won’t happen unless the people make their reps do it.

“Respect71 wrote:
You can if I was in my mother’s womb and she paid you to do it.
<rolls eyes>
Try to stay on topic. If my religion says I should do X, does that mean that no one can make a law that is against X without violating my first amendment rights?

If my religion says it is important to steal, are theft laws anti-constitutional?” Who’s getting off topic?
Respect71 wrote:

“Explain how owning a slave is the same at reserving a wedding cake for husband and wife?
Christian baker: I don't want to serve gay people. My religion says I can discriminate.
Law: You cannot discriminate against gay people.
Christian baker: The law is violating my religion.” First, the baker didn’t refuse service, he reserved the wedding cake for husbands and wives. Second, it wasn’t because the couple was gay it was because he doesn’t feel his talents shall be used to support “gay marriage”.

“Christian slaveowner: I don't want to release my slaves. My religion says I can own slaves.
Law: You cannot own slaves.
Christian slaveowner: The law is violating my religion.” OWNING PEOPLE is by no means the SAME as not serving a cake to someone. Your comparison has no merit.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1765 May 13, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is "gay marriage" in quotes?
Because we are talking about “gay marriage” or do you prefer “same-sex marriage”? Regardless I support them both.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1766 May 13, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Only those that are unconstitutional.
<quoted text>
The baker and photographer broke the law (this was decided by the courts), and the CEO made their own choice of their own free will.
<quoted text>
Simple, two people = two people.
<quoted text>
Denying same sex couples equality under the law to marry is treating them as second class citizens.
<quoted text>
And it is wedding cake regardless of who is being wed, and regardless of who is being wed it doesn't violate the free exercise or free speech of the baker. Get over it.
<quoted text>
No one's, unless it is a terribly tacky wedding.
<quoted text>
Get a clue, kiddo. Equality under the law is coming. It has happened before, and doesn't require majority acceptance. Although the US Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage, the majority didn't accept that until almost 30 years later. The law doesn't change what people can or should accept, it changes how people are treated as a matter of law.
“Only those that are unconstitutional.” The definition is what it is.

“The baker and photographer broke the law (this was decided by the courts),” It was and it’s wrong.
“and the CEO made their own choice of their own free will.” More intellectual dishonesty. He resigned under pressure and had he not he would have been ridiculed and demonized because of his personal belief. You and those like you are mean that way.

“Simple, two people = two people.” Yes and married is a husband and wife and “gay married” is a man and a man or woman and woman. The two aren’t equal.

“Denying same sex couples equality under the law to marry is treating them as second class citizens.” LOL… Quite the emotional irrational response to an untrue statement. You’re a second class citizen if they don’t give you a commercial drivers license too.

“Get a clue, kiddo. Equality under the law is coming. It has happened before, and doesn't require majority acceptance. Although the US Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage, the majority didn't accept that until almost 30 years later. The law doesn't change what people can or should accept, it changes how people are treated as a matter of law.” So you are. At least we know where you stand.

You would think that a the small part of our population, that the government is changing definition for, would be grateful and be respectful to the other Americans who hold different beliefs.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1767 May 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Because we are talking about “gay marriage” or do you prefer “same-sex marriage”? Regardless I support them both.
Nope, just talking about legal marriage. Whether same sex, or opposite sex, it's marriage. Get over it.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1768 May 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
So religious freedom only applies to churches?
There is no religious freedom to discriminate in the marketplace.
Respect71 wrote:
How is that? How does the symbolism change with words rather than without?
There is no inherent symbolism behind selling someone a product. If I sell you a Toyota and you use it to rob a bank, that doesn't mean I support bank robbery. If I sell you a cheeseburger and you take it to your obese friend, that doesn't mean I support gluttony.
Respect71 wrote:
The institution has been long before the laws… The IRS is a government institution, marriage is not. Your claim is false.
The civil institution of marriage defined, maintained, and enforced by the government is the relevant institution here.
Respect71 wrote:
Who’s getting off topic?
You are. You went off on an abortion tangent rather than address my point.
Respect71 wrote:
OWNING PEOPLE is by no means the SAME as not serving a cake to someone. Your comparison has no merit.
It's really difficult having a discussion with someone who can't comprehend a basic analogy.

"Peyton Manning is the Michael Jordan of football."
"FOOTBALL ISN'T THE SAME AS BASKETBALL!"

I'm not comparing making cakes to having slaves. I'm comparing two situations where a law goes against a person's religious beliefs. You believe one is a violation of religious freedom, but the other is not. You are not consistent.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1769 May 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The definition is what it is.
And it is unconstitutional, you have offered no argument to the contrary.
Respect71 wrote:
More intellectual dishonesty.
As opposed to your own dishonesty, which is anything but intellectual.
Respect71 wrote:
He resigned under pressure and had he not he would have been ridiculed and demonized because of his personal belief. You and those like you are mean that way.
He resigned, because it was in the best interest of the company. Of course, popular opinion has an impact upon corporate decisions. His remaining CEO would have had a negative impact upon the company. Are you against free speech?
Respect71 wrote:
Yes and married is a husband and wife and “gay married” is a man and a man or woman and woman. The two aren’t equal.
Sorry, kiddo, that depends upon jurisdiction. Some offer marriage between two people, without making the distinction you, unconstitutionally, draw.
Respect71 wrote:
LOL…
Interesting. You, apparently, see inequality under the law as funny. That certainly says something about you, and it isn't flattering.
Respect71 wrote:
Quite the emotional irrational response to an untrue statement. You’re a second class citizen if they don’t give you a commercial drivers license too.
No, sweet pea. A commercial driver's license requires a test and a display of certain skills. Were I unable to demonstrate such ability, then I should be denied the license. No such test exists for marriage. Try again.
Respect71 wrote:
So you are. At least we know where you stand.
I am not trying to change what people think or accept, I am trying to change the law in order to obtain equality under same.

You are free to remain the bigot you have always been.
Respect71 wrote:
You would think that a the small part of our population, that the government is changing definition for, would be grateful and be respectful to the other Americans who hold different beliefs.
I respect your beliefs, however you may not use them to withhold equality under the law for others.

Don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

It's pretty simple, actually.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1770 May 13, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just talking about legal marriage. Whether same sex, or opposite sex, it's marriage. Get over it.
Fine “legal marriage” for same-sex couple or gays.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1771 May 13, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no religious freedom to discriminate in the marketplace.
<quoted text>
There is no inherent symbolism behind selling someone a product. If I sell you a Toyota and you use it to rob a bank, that doesn't mean I support bank robbery. If I sell you a cheeseburger and you take it to your obese friend, that doesn't mean I support gluttony.
<quoted text>
The civil institution of marriage defined, maintained, and enforced by the government is the relevant institution here.
<quoted text>
You are. You went off on an abortion tangent rather than address my point.
<quoted text>
It's really difficult having a discussion with someone who can't comprehend a basic analogy.
"Peyton Manning is the Michael Jordan of football."
"FOOTBALL ISN'T THE SAME AS BASKETBALL!"
I'm not comparing making cakes to having slaves. I'm comparing two situations where a law goes against a person's religious beliefs. You believe one is a violation of religious freedom, but the other is not. You are not consistent.
“There is no inherent symbolism behind selling someone a product. If I sell you a Toyota and you use it to rob a bank, that doesn't mean I support bank robbery. If I sell you a cheeseburger and you take it to your obese friend, that doesn't mean I support gluttony.” LOL… all over the board… Wedding cakes mean something to others that apparently you don’t respect, but that doesn’t render them meaningless.

“The civil institution of marriage defined, maintained, and enforced by the government is the relevant institution here.” Your claim is false.

“You are. You went off on an abortion tangent rather than address my point.“ I addressed you point. You didn’t like that I addressed your point with the truth. If you can make a better argument, then by all means.

“It's really difficult having a discussion with someone who can't comprehend a basic analogy.” I comprehend what your are TRYING to analogize but the two aren’t analogous. Owning a human being vs reserving a wedding cake for only husbands and wives.
The situations DON’T match.

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) 2 hr Respect71 27,797
News Littleton's Jack-n-Grill has closed 15 hr Jami 1
Looking for blues Tue Megsyb32 2
News Attorney Frank Azar brings the "Strong Arm" to ... (Mar '07) Tue GLee 13
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) Tue Stephanie Shipley 715
Deepak Chapra has defective brain Tue King Burp 1
Local Politics Do you approve of Michael B. Hancock as Mayor? (Feb '12) Mon Moishey Levy 6

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages