Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 37409 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2124 Jun 5, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>So you arer saying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pointless?
So you're saying you're a liar?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2125 Jun 5, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>So you arer saying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pointless?
Newark Ohio? So do you guys think you're better than Newark New Joisey? YUK!YUK!YUK! Newark. We have one in CA too. Yup. It's a bit ghetto too.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2126 Jun 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not take the time to look for my answer about how I have been discriminated against by gays, blacks, Christians, a desk clerk at a motel and a Chinese restaurant.
I forgot to mention the gay bar where I brought my girlfriend at the time to meet my gay cousin. I was told men only.
Most of your examples were discrimination by association with your gay cousin, not anything directed at something about you. Another was purely a feeling on your part, and another was being annoyed by customers, not discriminated against by the business.

You don't have to worry about discrimination.
Reverend Alan wrote:
PS "Significant" is subjective. What I might consider a slight you might consider an intolerable and unbearable insult.
Being fired is significant. Getting kicked out of your home is significant. Getting reduced benefits from the govt is significant. Having to worry that you will be denied service at many places is significant.
Reverend Alan wrote:
The point was we went to another gay bar, another hotel, another Chinese restaurant. We also told everyone we knew about our experiences hoping they would tell everyone they knew about them. No need to call the government, we took care of it ourselves.
It's not always that easy. What if you drove into an area and your car ran low on gas, but every gas station in the area refused you service? What if you were hungry and multiple restaurants told you to GTFO?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2127 Jun 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't need to be at the hearing, they unanimously upheld the ruling of the Administrative law judge, whose findings quite clearly debunked the arguments of the individual in question.
All they needed to do was affirm the ruling, no written r
And, as Colorado has found and affirmed, they have an equaright of the people not to be discriminated against. Simply put, the baker may feel same sex marriage is wrong, and he is free not to enter into such a union. He doesn't have the right to project his religious moral views onto others, or to deny service to those who believe differently. Ironically, this is the very basis of religious freedom.
I'm sorry that you hate religious freedom, freedom in general, and the US Constitution. Freedom inherently means tolerating those with differing views. I don't care what your religious beliefs are, and I would provide you services regardless of your faith. It is sad that you think people should be able to deny their fellow citizens service because they believe differently. Clearly, you have a somewhat warped view of freedom. The fact of the matter is that the Colorado ALJ, and the Civil Rights Board both got this question right.
“I didn't need to be at the hearing, they unanimously upheld the ruling of the Administrative law judge, whose findings quite clearly debunked the arguments of the individual in question.

All they needed to do was affirm the ruling, no written ruling was required.” It’s okay to ignore the law when it support your agenda. You are quite the American.

“Simple, they denied service to a potential client on the basis of their sexual orientation. This isn't a difficult concept, Respect.” To you it is.

“Why, that of the would-be client, of course. The proprietor's rights were never in jeopardy. Only an idiot would think that they were.”… Except now he’s out of business… But that’s what you want for Americans who don’t believe same as you.

“No, it's the service that was requested from a public business, which was denied on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the laws of the state of Colorado. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.” Because your statement is incorrect. Why would he serve gays baked goods but reserve a wedding cake of or husband and wives only? That’s not a “the basis of sexual orientation”

“Simply put, no, it isn't.” Yes, it is.

“Sorry kiddo, the law requires that the baker provide their services to all potential clients, unless the client seeks something that would be universally accepted as obscene. Requesting a wedding cake doesn't fit the bill.” Good to know you will be the first to prosecute the gay graphic designer who refuses to create signs for the Westboro Baptist Church protests that read,“God hates fags!” You want to prosecute him for discrimination against gay hating Christians. Does it feel good where you stand?

“Do you ever notice how often you laugh at the law? It doesn't make you look terribly intelligent. Then again, neither does your ignorance of same.” I’m laughing at you… It’s funny how you can’t tell.

“Sorry, kiddo, you are the one defending people who break the law by thrusting their religious beliefs onto would-be clients, and I am the one defending the right of the people not to be discriminated against.” I would do the same for the gay graphic designer hire to make signs that say,“God hates fags”. You and government shouldn’t force Americans to use their talents to support things and events they can’t religiously or morally respect.
“I'm sorry that you hate religious freedom, freedom in general, and the US Constitution. Freedom inherently means tolerating those with differing views.” Like the baker who doesn’t believe in “gay marriage”, that you so passionately desire to punish and put out of business. You don’t stand for freedom unless it’s those who believe the same as you.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2128 Jun 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
I said, people who tolerated gay people, people who supported gays being treated equally, backed off when this cake thing happened saying gays may have gone too far.
And I asked for evidence of this. You didn't provide any.
Reverend Alan wrote:
A dozen or so state legislatures wrote laws saying the anti-discrimination laws did not apply to Christians. Christians who were willing to agree to stop discriminating against gays had second thoughts.
Evidence of second thoughts?
Reverend Alan wrote:
The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer is mincing few words in his defense of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who was recently ordered by a judge to provide wedding cakes for same-sex couples or risk facing fines.
Bryan Fischer is a complete nutcase. He doesn't need to mince words.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2129 Jun 6, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
OK great, you do not support it but you will sit quietly by and tolerate it and not speak out against it. Did I read your post incorrectly? That is what you said is it not?
I'm saying I didn't see it because I typically don't follow conversations other than the ones I am engaged in.

To chide people for not stepping in to things they aren't even aware of is silly.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2130 Jun 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The customer is a skin head and if they refuse to make him the cake they are discriminating against him for his beliefs.
When did skinheads become a protected class?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2131 Jun 6, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
It’s okay to ignore the law when it support your agenda. You are quite the American.
They actually upheld the law, kiddo. Learn to read.
Respect71 wrote:
To you it is.
No, it isn't. You are the one who is having difficulty.
Respect71 wrote:
… Except now he’s out of business… But that’s what you want for Americans who don’t believe same as you.
No, he's not. He HAS ELECTED to stop offering wedding cakes, an option left open to him by the ALJ.

Are you ignorant, or are you a liar?
Respect71 wrote:
Because your statement is incorrect.
No it isn't, it is wholly accurate.
Respect71 wrote:
Why would he serve gays baked goods but reserve a wedding cake of or husband and wives only? That’s not a “the basis of sexual orientation”
I have no idea, he wasn't able to offer any justification of his actions that would satisfy existing law in the jurisdiction. Apparently, you aren't capable of doing so either.
Respect71 wrote:
Yes, it is.
This is hardly an effective or factually supported argument.
Respect71 wrote:
Good to know you will be the first to prosecute the gay graphic designer who refuses to create signs for the Westboro Baptist Church protests that read,“God hates fags!” You want to prosecute him for discrimination against gay hating Christians. Does it feel good where you stand?
Did you read the decision, or are you a moron?
"Finally, Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."

Your idiotic notion has already been addressed by the court.
Respect71 wrote:
I’m laughing at you… It’s funny how you can’t tell.
Actually, the feeling is mutual. I frequently laugh at your idiocy, and your inability to see that you are an idiot.
Respect71 wrote:
I would do the same for the gay graphic designer hire to make signs that say,“God hates fags”. You and government shouldn’t force Americans to use their talents to support things and events they can’t religiously or morally respect.
And you would be a moron for so thinking, for the reasons listed in the court ruling.
Respect71 wrote:
Like the baker who doesn’t believe in “gay marriage”, that you so passionately desire to punish and put out of business. You don’t stand for freedom unless it’s those who believe the same as you.
Sorry, dumb person, the baker has the right not to marry someone of the same sex, they don't have the right to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation, as the court has already held, and the civil rights panel unanimously affirmed.

We have free exercise of religion, we don't have the right to project our religious moral beliefs onto others. And, in fact, doing so is the opposite of free exercise.

Anyone who isn't a imbecile could understand this simple fact.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2132 Jun 6, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
When did skinheads become a protected class?
When did they become non-citizens?
Why should anti-discrimination laws not apply to them?
The deal is, if you bake cakes for anyone you must bake cakes for anyone that wants one.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2133 Jun 6, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
When did they become non-citizens?
Why should anti-discrimination laws not apply to them?
The deal is, if you bake cakes for anyone you must bake cakes for anyone that wants one.
Are skinheads listed as a protected class in the anti-discrimination statute? Yes or no will suffice. Of course the answer is no.

Sucks to be you. BUY a clue.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2135 Jun 7, 2014
lides wrote:
They actually upheld the law, kiddo. Learn to read.
Respect71 wrote, "To you it is."

No, it isn't. You are the one who is having difficulty.
Respect71 wrote, "… Except now he’s out of business… But that’s what you want for Americans who don’t believe same as you."

No, he's not. He HAS ELECTED to stop offering wedding cakes, an option left open to him by the ALJ.

Are you ignorant, or are you a liar?
Respect71 wrote, "Because your statement is incorrect."

No it isn't, it is wholly accurate.
Respect71 wrote, "Why would he serve gays baked goods but reserve a wedding cake of or husband and wives only? That’s not a “the basis of sexual orientation”"

I have no idea, he wasn't able to offer any justification of his actions that would satisfy existing law in the jurisdiction. Apparently, you aren't capable of doing so either.
Respect71 wrote, "Yes, it is."

This is hardly an effective or factually supported argument.
Respect71 wrote, "Good to know you will be the first to prosecute the gay graphic designer who refuses to create signs for the Westboro Baptist Church protests that read,“God hates fags!” You want to prosecute him for discrimination against gay hating Christians. Does it feel good where you stand?"

Did you read the decision, or are you a moron?
"Finally, Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."

Your idiotic notion has already been addressed by the court.
Respect71 wrote, "I’m laughing at you… It’s funny how you can’t tell."

Actually, the feeling is mutual. I frequently laugh at your idiocy, and your inability to see that you are an idiot.
Respect71 wrote, "I would do the same for the gay graphic designer hire to make signs that say,“God hates fags”. You and government shouldn’t force Americans to use their talents to support things and events they can’t religiously or morally respect."

And you would be a moron for so thinking, for the reasons listed in the court ruling.
Respect71 wrote, "Like the baker who doesn’t believe in “gay marriage”, that you so passionately desire to punish and put out of business. You don’t stand for freedom unless it’s those who believe the same as you."

Sorry, dumb person, the baker has the right not to marry someone of the same sex, they don't have the right to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation, as the court has already held, and the civil rights panel unanimously affirmed.

We have free exercise of religion, we don't have the right to project our religious moral beliefs onto others. And, in fact, doing so is the opposite of free exercise.

Anyone who isn't a imbecile could understand this simple fact.
Now that your name calling is more than repetitive, and your diversion of rational thought is without any logic what so ever, we will leave it that.

I stand for freedom, religious or otherwise, for all Americans, and you are for using government to punish those who don't believe as you. Talk about projecting.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2136 Jun 7, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
....Sucks to be you. BUY a clue.
Wow! Bet that one got him. YUK!YUK!YUK! Fun stuff.
Archie Bunker

Arvada, CO

#2137 Jun 7, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
They actually upheld the law, kiddo. Learn to read.
<quoted text>
No, it isn't. You are the one who is having difficulty.
<quoted text>
No, he's not. He HAS ELECTED to stop offering wedding cakes, an option left open to him by the ALJ.
Are you ignorant, or are you a liar?
<quoted text>
No it isn't, it is wholly accurate.
<quoted text>
I have no idea, he wasn't able to offer any justification of his actions that would satisfy existing law in the jurisdiction. Apparently, you aren't capable of doing so either.
<quoted text>
This is hardly an effective or factually supported argument.
<quoted text>
Did you read the decision, or are you a moron?
"Finally, Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."
Your idiotic notion has already been addressed by the court.
<quoted text>
Actually, the feeling is mutual. I frequently laugh at your idiocy, and your inability to see that you are an idiot.
<quoted text>
And you would be a moron for so thinking, for the reasons listed in the court ruling.
<quoted text>
Sorry, dumb person, the baker has the right not to marry someone of the same sex, they don't have the right to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation, as the court has already held, and the civil rights panel unanimously affirmed.
We have free exercise of religion, we don't have the right to project our religious moral beliefs onto others. And, in fact, doing so is the opposite of free exercise.
Anyone who isn't a imbecile could understand this simple fact.
Meaty

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2139 Jun 8, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Now that your name calling is more than repetitive, and your diversion of rational thought is without any logic what so ever, we will leave it that.
I stand for freedom, religious or otherwise, for all Americans, and you are for using government to punish those who don't believe as you. Talk about projecting.
Sorry, kiddo, you regularly claim to support same sex marriage, but then repeatedly offer arguments against it.

You don't stand for freedom or equality, and you have made it quite clear that you think religious individuals should be able to be a law unto themselves and or project their religious convictions onto others through their businesses. Ironically, this would be the ultimate violation of free exercise.

The reality, it appears, is that you support freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, but only for people who believe exactly as you do.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2140 Jun 8, 2014
lides wrote:
and you have made it quite clear that you think religious individuals should be able to be a law unto themselves and or project their religious convictions onto others through their businesses.
More proof that you're an imbecile. Thanks for providing it. See, religious people just want to practice their religion, that have a constitutional promise that they can.

This baker isn't projecting anything, he is following his religion. A normal person would say they understand and go elsewhere. They would bake their own cake. When we're talking about equality why do you feel that the gays should have the edge over this man's religion?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2141 Jun 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
More proof that you're an imbecile. Thanks for providing it. See, religious people just want to practice their religion, that have a constitutional promise that they can.
Of course, the baker didn't seek to practice his religion, but rather to hold others to his religious standards in order to obtain his services. In doing so, he is violating the free exercise of his customers, in his foolish attempt to project his beliefs onto them.

You might note, the court pointed out the folly of his logic. That you continue to arguing citing a person who has already repeatedly lost in court is laughable.
Wondering wrote:
This baker isn't projecting anything, he is following his religion.
No, he isn't. He is projecting his religious beliefs onto others, by denying them service unless their actions are in line with his religion. That is a dangerous position to advocate. Were you smarter than a rock, you might understand just how dangerous it would be if the law allowed people to ignore laws that conflict with their interpretation of their religion. That would essentially allow everyone to be a law unto themselves and ignore any law.
Wondering wrote:
A normal person would say they understand and go elsewhere.
No, a normal person would resist illegal discrimination. I'm sure you wouldn't take it lying down if you were denied service because the business owner found you to be a bigoted moron.
Wondering wrote:
They would bake their own cake.
The point is, they don't have to. They have every bit as much the right to walk into a bakery and obtain the same services as anyone else.
Wondering wrote:
When we're talking about equality why do you feel that the gays should have the edge over this man's religion?
They don't. Providing the service has no bearing upon the proprietor's free exercise or free speech, they are irrelevant to the service.

Face it kiddo, it's actually in the bible. Treat others as you would be treated.

It appears that, just like you are an idiot, the baker is a hypocrite.
The Dreadful Few

Amherst, MA

#2142 Jun 8, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the baker didn't seek to practice his religion, but rather to hold others to his religious standards in order to obtain his services. In doing so, he is violating the free exercise of his customers, in his foolish attempt to project his beliefs onto them.
You might note, the court pointed out the folly of his logic. That you continue to arguing citing a person who has already repeatedly lost in court is laughable.
<quoted text>
No, he isn't. He is projecting his religious beliefs onto others, by denying them service unless their actions are in line with his religion. That is a dangerous position to advocate. Were you smarter than a rock, you might understand just how dangerous it would be if the law allowed people to ignore laws that conflict with their interpretation of their religion. That would essentially allow everyone to be a law unto themselves and ignore any law.
<quoted text>
No, a normal person would resist illegal discrimination. I'm sure you wouldn't take it lying down if you were denied service because the business owner found you to be a bigoted moron.
<quoted text>
The point is, they don't have to. They have every bit as much the right to walk into a bakery and obtain the same services as anyone else.
<quoted text>
They don't. Providing the service has no bearing upon the proprietor's free exercise or free speech, they are irrelevant to the service.
Face it kiddo, it's actually in the bible. Treat others as you would be treated.
It appears that, just like you are an idiot, the baker is a hypocrite.
Good afternoon my terrorist loving national security crisis Marxist intellectual charlatan fool!

California Chrome hits the wall, nasal strip and all. A sore loser for an owner too.
The Dreadful Few

Amherst, MA

#2143 Jun 8, 2014
:o)

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2144 Jun 8, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, kiddo, you regularly claim to support same sex marriage, but then repeatedly offer arguments against it.

You don't stand for freedom or equality, and you have made it quite clear that you think religious individuals should be able to be a law unto themselves and or project their religious convictions onto others through their businesses. Ironically, this would be the ultimate violation of free exercise.

The reality, it appears, is that you support freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, but only for people who believe exactly as you do.
I support "gay marriage" for what it is, and it is you who seem to feel I "offer arguments against it." That's on you, sad how you continually try to put words in my mouth that I NEVER say.

I absolutely stand for freedom of all Americans. Again, I am not the one advocating for government punishment of those who font believe as I do, however, you are.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2145 Jun 8, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I support "gay marriage" for what it is, and it is you who seem to feel I "offer arguments against it." That's on you, sad how you continually try to put words in my mouth that I NEVER say.
I absolutely stand for freedom of all Americans. Again, I am not the one advocating for government punishment of those who font believe as I do, however, you are.
Spot on.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

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

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 5 hr Roy R 23,574
Lookin' for dank in all the wrong Places lol 7 hr Big Rob 2
106.7 kbpi is the worst morning show ever! (Feb '15) 9 hr Rene 587
The Parade of Double Standards Continues in the... 14 hr Culture Auditor 1
News Old evidence at new trial (May '06) Tue jww 1,123
Memorial Day Jun 28 Taylor V 13
The Media Expose Priests But Cover Up For Micha... Jun 28 Francisco 7

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages