Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 49182 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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1813 May 19, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Cite my post where I state or “call it[‘gay marriage”] lesser, and rail against it;”. You can’t and that makes you a liar. Your dishonesty and blatant lies about this entire subject are sad.
You have done so time and time again, you lying hypocrite.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1815 May 19, 2014
Another bridge, another troll. When you going to register and stop naming hopping? Oh, that's right, you can't hold a registered name and continue doing what you are doing. What a pity.
Praxis33

Pittsfield, MA

#1816 May 19, 2014
I'll get a registered account as soon as you release your name. In fact Lides, after you post your name I'll get a registered account "And" post my name.
Take your time.

:o)

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1817 May 19, 2014
Praxis33 wrote:
I'll get a registered account as soon as you release your name. In fact Lides, after you post your name I'll get a registered account "And" post my name.
Take your time.
:o)
Of course, I already have a registered account, and only post through said account.

Try again, troll.

It's hardly my fault that you are so disingenuous as to post under multiple names, or lack the ability to hold onto a registered account. It just means you are a troll.
Arch Stanton

Dalton, MA

#1818 May 19, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, I already have a registered account, and only post through said account.
Try again, troll.
It's hardly my fault that you are so disingenuous as to post under multiple names, or lack the ability to hold onto a registered account. It just means you are a troll.
That means nothing to me. The name on the grave is what matters Lides.
Arch Stanton

Dalton, MA

#1819 May 19, 2014
It must have a name, or a number.

:o)

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1820 May 19, 2014
Arch Stanton wrote:
That means nothing to me. The name on the grave is what matters Lides.
Troll on, moron.

Trolls, like yourself, are why I choose to isolate my personal identity from potential online stalkers, like yourself. Particularly, those who live, or claim to live, in the county.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1821 May 19, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You have done so time and time again, you lying hypocrite.
Cite my post where I state or “call it[‘gay marriage”] lesser, and rail against it;”. You can’t and that makes you a liar.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1822 May 19, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Cite my post where I state or “call it[‘gay marriage”] lesser, and rail against it;”. You can’t and that makes you a liar.
You've been doing so continually. I have better things to do with my time than dig back through your mindless blather to prove what you have absolutely been saying all along.

Face it, kiddo. You are trying to advance an ambivalent argument where you claim to support same sex marriage, but also maintain your moral disapproval of homosexuality.

In reality, it's pretty pathetic.
Arch Stanton

Dalton, MA

#1823 May 19, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Troll on, moron.
Trolls, like yourself, are why I choose to isolate my personal identity from potential online stalkers, like yourself. Particularly, those who live, or claim to live, in the county.
Oh PUHLEEEEZE!!! Your internet boyfriend Praxis33 is the biggest internet stalker in Massachusetts for Christ's sake!

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1824 May 19, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>You've been doing so continually. I have better things to do with my time than dig back through your mindless blather to prove what you have absolutely been saying all along.

Face it, kiddo. You are trying to advance an ambivalent argument where you claim to support same sex marriage, but also maintain your moral disapproval of homosexuality.

In reality, it's pretty pathetic.
What's pathetic is that you are the liar. You can't back up your statement so you demonize me as if I was the horrible bad guy standing in the way of you blatant lies.

Cite you claim otherwise a liar you remain.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1825 May 19, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
What's pathetic is that you are the liar. You can't back up your statement so you demonize me as if I was the horrible bad guy standing in the way of you blatant lies.
Cite you claim otherwise a liar you remain.
You did it to yourself. All one need do is look at your back posts to see who is truly lying, and who is a hypocrite.
Post 1384, where you claim same sex couples are not equal (i.e. they are either lesser or greater):
"Prove the gay relationship is the same or equal to that of a man-woman relationship… It’s not an EQUAL rights issue, until the law starts punishing those who believe in traditional marriage."

Post #1374, where you argue that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry:
"They are people... And their relationship falls outside of the definition of marriage. Charging the government to force a change in the redefinition of marriage still won’t change that fact."

Post #1112, you again claim same sex couples are not equal:
"I’m a liar because you say so? Who are you? A hater of Christians charging the government to punish those you don’t agree with.

You can’t explain it because they are not “equal”.

If you don’t allow people to be Christians in public then why would you be allowed to be gay in public?"

Post #1101, where you contradict yourself saying that all Americans have rights, having vociferously argued against equality under the law for asme sex couples to marry up to that point, and for that matter afterward:
"The constitution is clear and it is on ALL side of Americans. All Americans have rights and not ALL americans have to agree with you."

You have regularly indicated that same sex couples are lesser than opposite sex ones. Now you try to back-pedal, because you realize that makes you look like a monster. Congratulations, well played.

Ironically, you started out by making religious argument, then segued into arguing, rightly, that congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. All the while, you have ignored the fact that the baker lost in a court of law, and the court's decision neatly and succinctly debunked all of the baker's arguments, and thoroughly illustrated that none of the baker's rights were violated, nor would they be if they provided the service.

The baker is not in trouble for standing up for their religious freedom or free speech, they are in trouble because they broke the law by denying service on the basis of sexual orientation, and providing said service in no way impacts their free exercise or free speech. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...

Grow up.
Demon Lides

Dalton, MA

#1826 May 19, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Troll on, moron.
Trolls, like yourself, are why I choose to isolate my personal identity from potential online stalkers, like yourself. Particularly, those who live, or claim to live, in the county.
This coming from a moron who associates himself with with another once registered topix user that once threatened to beat another user with a gun. Some fine company you keep there Lides.

KarlVIIIII

“No Tea for Me”

Since: Nov 13

Centennial, Co

#1827 May 19, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
What's pathetic is that you are the liar. You can't back up your statement so you demonize me as if I was the horrible bad guy standing in the way of you blatant lies.
Cite you claim otherwise a liar you remain.
Here you are again on another thread LOSING the argument/Debate (badly I might add) Resorting to calling people of a different opinion a "Liar"

You really need to see a psychiatrist for your multiple disorders. Like I pointed out on the other thread you take text book Projection to a new level and now your Masochistic disorder is becoming apparent!

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1829 May 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You did it to yourself. All one need do is look at your back posts to see who is truly lying, and who is a hypocrite.
Post 1384, where you claim same sex couples are not equal (i.e. they are either lesser or greater):
"Prove the gay relationship is the same or equal to that of a man-woman relationship… It’s not an EQUAL rights issue, until the law starts punishing those who believe in traditional marriage."
Post #1374, where you argue that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry:
"They are people... And their relationship falls outside of the definition of marriage. Charging the government to force a change in the redefinition of marriage still won’t change that fact."
Post #1112, you again claim same sex couples are not equal:
"I’m a liar because you say so? Who are you? A hater of Christians charging the government to punish those you don’t agree with.
You can’t explain it because they are not “equal”.
If you don’t allow people to be Christians in public then why would you be allowed to be gay in public?"
Post #1101, where you contradict yourself saying that all Americans have rights, having vociferously argued against equality under the law for asme sex couples to marry up to that point, and for that matter afterward:
"The constitution is clear and it is on ALL side of Americans. All Americans have rights and not ALL americans have to agree with you."
You have regularly indicated that same sex couples are lesser than opposite sex ones. Now you try to back-pedal, because you realize that makes you look like a monster. Congratulations, well played.
Ironically, you started out by making religious argument, then segued into arguing, rightly, that congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. All the while, you have ignored the fact that the baker lost in a court of law, and the court's decision neatly and succinctly debunked all of the baker's arguments, and thoroughly illustrated that none of the baker's rights were violated, nor would they be if they provided the service.
The baker is not in trouble for standing up for their religious freedom or free speech, they are in trouble because they broke the law by denying service on the basis of sexual orientation, and providing said service in no way impacts their free exercise or free speech. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
Grow up.
Post# 1807 You stated,“You claim to support same sex marriage while you call it lesser, and rail against it;” Yet even with what you are citing no 1 of those posts did I “call it lesser” or “rail against it;”.
You cite many of my posts and then YOU state,“where you claim same sex couples are not equal (i.e. they are either lesser or greater)” and “You have regularly indicated that same sex couples are lesser than opposite sex ones.” When? Not one of those posts you cite says ANYTHING like that! If I stated,“first responding firefighters aren’t equal to first responding law enforcement officers”(which is absolutely a truthful and factual statement) would you then assume I mean one is “LESSER” than the other?
I am absolutely for “gay marriage” and I am absolutely for defining it for what it is.
It’s very apparent you don’t actually read my posts objectively and try to understand what I say.

As for the baker, photographer, and anyone in the wedding business industry… I understand the law and the decisions made by the courts… It’s clear that government is forcing those to support your side despite their personal beliefs and because you push for redefinition more cases will come to light and the Supreme Court will eventually have to make a ruling. My question to you is, will you feel dissatisfied if the Court rules the wedding industry discretion based on personal belief of what marriage is to the owners of the businesses?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1830 May 20, 2014
KarlVIIIII wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are again on another thread LOSING the argument/Debate (badly I might add) Resorting to calling people of a different opinion a "Liar"
You really need to see a psychiatrist for your multiple disorders. Like I pointed out on the other thread you take text book Projection to a new level and now your Masochistic disorder is becoming apparent!
Is that the thread where you claim 99.9% of all private charities receive government grants?
Call me all the names you would like… That only shows you can’t dispute any of the facts I present to you.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1831 May 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<BS truncated>
I am absolutely for “gay marriage” and I am absolutely for defining it for what it is.
It is marriage, plain and simple.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s very apparent you don’t actually read my posts objectively and try to understand what I say.
Ho can one be objective about hypocritical and contradictory BS?
Respect71 wrote:
As for the baker, photographer, and anyone in the wedding business industry… I understand the law and the decisions made by the courts…
And yet you continue to whine as though they had not spoken. You also don't present a substantially different argument than those who have already lost in court. Face it kiddo, it is no violation of the proprietor's rights to provide a service for someone who holds differing views.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s clear that government is forcing those to support your side despite their personal beliefs and because you push for redefinition more cases will come to light and the Supreme Court will eventually have to make a ruling.
Nope, the govenment is merely demanding that a business treat all potential patrons equally.
Respect71 wrote:
My question to you is, will you feel dissatisfied if the Court rules the wedding industry discretion based on personal belief of what marriage is to the owners of the businesses?
They won't, because providing such services for same sex couples does not infringe upon any of the freedoms of the proprietor. If the proprietor feels that they do, they have the right not to open a place of public accommodation.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1832 May 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It is marriage, plain and simple.
<quoted text>
Ho can one be objective about hypocritical and contradictory BS?
<quoted text>
And yet you continue to whine as though they had not spoken. You also don't present a substantially different argument than those who have already lost in court. Face it kiddo, it is no violation of the proprietor's rights to provide a service for someone who holds differing views.
<quoted text>
Nope, the govenment is merely demanding that a business treat all potential patrons equally.
<quoted text>
They won't, because providing such services for same sex couples does not infringe upon any of the freedoms of the proprietor. If the proprietor feels that they do, they have the right not to open a place of public accommodation.
“It is marriage, plain and simple.”“same sex” or “gay marriage”

“Ho can one be objective about hypocritical and contradictory BS?” If you would take your time you would see I am very constant, straight forward and honest. I am for “gay marriage” I am for Liberty for all Americans,“gay marriage” and for those who don’t believe in “gay marriage”. It’s not up to government to force everyone to believe the same as you.

“They won't, because providing such services for same sex couples does not infringe upon any of the freedoms of the proprietor. If the proprietor feels that they do, they have the right not to open a place of public accommodation.” It does, but aside from that it’s that hard for you to answer a direct question? Step outside your small box for one moment and try.
Last time: how will you feel if the Court rules the wedding industry discretion based on personal belief of what marriage is to the owners of the businesses?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1833 May 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“same sex” or “gay marriage”
In the eyes of the law, marriage is marriage, kiddo. The law doesn't make a distinction, even if you do.
Respect71 wrote:
If you would take your time you would see I am very constant, straight forward and honest. I am for “gay marriage” I am for Liberty for all Americans,“gay marriage” and for those who don’t believe in “gay marriage”. It’s not up to government to force everyone to believe the same as you.
You are consistently full of contradictory crap that has no basis in reality.
Respect71 wrote:
It does, but aside from that it’s that hard for you to answer a direct question? Step outside your small box for one moment and try.
Simply put, it doesn't. Those proprietors who have taken these cases to court have consistently lost their arguments. Simply put, you are wrong. Then again, what else is new?
Respect71 wrote:
Last time: how will you feel if the Court rules the wedding industry discretion based on personal belief of what marriage is to the owners of the businesses?
I won't have to worry about feeling anything, no court is stupid enough to make such a judgment. Even the US Supreme Court has signaled that they have no intention of making such a ruling when the refuse to hear the Elaine Photography case. Face it kiddo, freedom of religion allows you to hold the religious beliefs of your choosing, not to force others to conform to those beliefs in order to obtain your services.

What you are arguing is actually an infringement of the free exercise of religion of patrons. The business owner may believe that same sex marriage is wrong or amoral, and as such they have the right not to enter into such a union. However, as multiple courts have already held, they don't have the right to project their religious moral beliefs onto customers.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1834 May 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
In the eyes of the law, marriage is marriage, kiddo. The law doesn't make a distinction, even if you do.
How about divorce in the eyes of the law?
Oh my, that's a different ballgame.

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) 3 hr tbird19482 28,354
casual sex in denver (Apr '15) Mon bigpoppi 23
Male on Female Facesitting topix? (Nov '16) May 21 JGJ92 12
Roosters May 19 zooalogy 1
Tar in Denver May 18 Haaalllpppp 4
Tar help May 18 Haaalllpppp 1
last post wins! (Feb '11) May 18 Princess Hey 26,380

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages