Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 57457 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.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2187 Jun 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. You both twist everything to your bend which is "gay marriage" and you want everyone to believe as you... So you both believe it's appropriate for government to punish those who don't believe as you. Which is what? A lie to the general public so they bend to your will.
Federal law mandates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedo...
I notice you ignore this from your link:
The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and was passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes.[2] It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. But it continues to be applied to the federal government, for instance in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedo...

Why are you citing a law that was declared Unconstitutional?

That's as silly as someone citing Baker vs Nelson
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2188 Jun 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. You both twist everything to your bend which is "gay marriage" and you want everyone to believe as you... So you both believe it's appropriate for government to punish those who don't believe as you. Which is what? A lie to the general public so they bend to your will.
Federal law mandates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedo...
Baking a cake is NOT a religious practice. A bakery is NOT a church.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2189 Jun 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are speaking of is NON-ACTIONÖ What was the non-action based on? His beliefs! Government punishing Americans who believe marriage is between a husband and wife and reserves his talents for a wedding cake to husbands and wives, is unconstitutional. The baker was literally being punished for doing NOTHING, and you and your friends support this because of your desire to force your beliefs upon those you donít believe as you.
SCOTUS decides what is constitutional, not you.

The baker refused service based on sexual orientation. In refusing service, he violated the gay couple's civil rights. That is illegal in Colorado. Plain and simple. End of story.

This baker is free to believe whatever he wants to believe about gay couples getting married. He is NOT free to break the law. Baking a cake isn't a belief. It is conduct. No one interfered with his right to believe whatever he wants.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2190 Jun 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. You both twist everything to your bend which is "gay marriage" and you want everyone to believe as you... So you both believe it's appropriate for government to punish those who don't believe as you. Which is what? A lie to the general public so they bend to your will.
Federal law mandates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedo...
He's not being punished for his beliefs. Religious freedom does NOT mean that somebody who has a business has a right to discriminate against members of the public who want to patronize his business.

Was the baker fined? No
Was the baker thrown in jail? No

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2191 Jun 10, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. You both twist everything to your bend which is "gay marriage" and you want everyone to believe as you... So you both believe it's appropriate for government to punish those who don't believe as you. Which is what? A lie to the general public so they bend to your will.
Federal law mandates:http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Rest oration_Act
Did you eat some mushrooms you found?

Your own link points out that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was found to be unconstitutional, though individual States may pass similar measures.

This has nothing to do with what Lides or I or the Baker believes about SSM.

It is simply about business owners having to obey laws that apply to all other business owners.

You want a special exemption to existing laws. And such exemptions were never passed in that State or that city.

BTW Here's the law you are citing (which the baker tried to use as a defense:

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION - Legal Information
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a personís exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a personís exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the personó
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/200...

(c) btw using this as his defense was his way of seeking judicial relief. And HE LOST!
Archer

Denver, CO

#2192 Jun 10, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>By making sure the law is enforced?
In case you've been educated
This is why your side is getting the rap it has.
Here's a free clue:
What Does the Bible Say About Obeying Authority?
By throwing a fit instead of moving on to the next baker.
No i have not been educated by that.
Choke dead on your clues.
Screw the bible.
Archer

Denver, CO

#2193 Jun 10, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why your side is getting the rap it has.
Do not assume. I have never stated my voter affiliation.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2194 Jun 10, 2014
Archer wrote:
<quoted text>
Do not assume. I have never stated my voter affiliation.
I wasn't referring to your voter registration.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2195 Jun 10, 2014
Archer wrote:
<quoted text>

Screw the bible.
So you really don't care if the guy is really following the belief system that he claims he's following?

That explains a great deal about you.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2196 Jun 10, 2014
Archer wrote:
<quoted text>
By throwing a fit instead of moving on to the next baker.
Sort of like Rosa Parks did?
Archer wrote:
<quoted text>No i have not been educated by that.
Obviously
Archer wrote:
<quoted text>Choke dead on your clues.
Live long and Prosper
Archer wrote:
<quoted text>Screw the bible.
I guess I have more respect for his religious text than you do.
Archer

Denver, CO

#2197 Jun 10, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>So you really don't care if the guy is really following the belief system that he claims he's following?
That explains a great deal about you.
If he does not want to make a cake, i do not care why. I would not want him to make my cake.
Does this say a lot about me too? Why are you trying to make this about me? Oh yea because your a troll.
Archer

Denver, CO

#2198 Jun 10, 2014
Waaaa. Fecis cake.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2199 Jun 10, 2014
Archer wrote:
<quoted text>
If he does not want to make a cake, i do not care why. I would not want him to make my cake.
agreed.
Archer wrote:
<quoted text>Does this say a lot about me too?
IMO yes it does
Archer wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you trying to make this about me?
I was responbding to your position on a public discussion forum. If that makes you feel picked on, maybe you need to play elsewhere
Archer wrote:
<quoted text> Oh yea because your a troll.
see my previous response.
Archie

Denver, CO

#2200 Jun 10, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Sort of like Rosa Parks did?
Rosa Parks was not telling people how to operate thier private bussiness.
Archie

Denver, CO

#2201 Jun 10, 2014
Like i said yesterday, you can force someone to make your cake, but i wouldn't eat it.
Archie

Denver, CO

#2202 Jun 10, 2014
Enjoy your fecis cake.
Archie

Denver, CO

#2203 Jun 10, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I wasn't referring to your voter registration.
So sorry. What did you mean by "my side"?
Archie

Denver, CO

#2204 Jun 10, 2014
DNF wrote:
maybe you need to play elsewhere
Nah.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2206 Jun 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I stand for all Americans freedom while you continue to advocate for government punishment for those who don't believe the same as you-no matter how you twist it that's where you stand.
I have NEVER been dishonest in one post of this thread, where you have repeatedly stated I said things you could never prove I said. You are the liar and worse yet you lie at the expense of American freedom for your bias.
No, you are a two faced liar, claiming to support individual freedom, while actually supporting oppression.

Face it kiddo, when business discriminates against a class of people, it is no different from an individual doing the same.

Providing a service for someone who holds a differing view in no way impacts upon the free exercise of the proprietor. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.
Spies r Us

Dalton, MA

#2207 Jun 11, 2014
The perverted charlatan spewith over.#2206

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
Red Dot Storage 7 hr Doug 4
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) Sun tbird19482 29,997
Men wearing panties and bra and sex with women (Jul '16) Oct 14 Xdresser6317 26
Whatís Nicole Rodriguez like? Oct 13 The man 1
News The Ten Best Handheld Breakfast Burritos in Denver Oct 12 surfeagle 1
Male on Female Facesitting topix? (Nov '16) Oct 11 Wrestler facesitter 24
High Dose Vitamin C injected intravenously can ... Oct 11 Tailwind 3

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages