Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 21568 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.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2227 Jun 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you stand in support of government punishing Americans who don’t believe the same as you. Good to know.
Do you have any arguments that aren't based around a completely dishonest framing?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2228 Jun 11, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
“No, you are a two faced liar, claiming to support individual freedom, while actually supporting oppression.” Show my post where I stated this?

“Face it kiddo, when business discriminates against a class of people, it is no different from an individual doing the same.” Like a hospital hiring a janitor for a surgeon position.

“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.”

I support “gay marriage”
I support Americans holding their beliefs without fear of loosing their livelihood.

You, however, support government punishment for those who don't believe as you.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2229 Jun 11, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have any arguments that aren't based around a completely dishonest framing?
The more apparent question is, do you?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2230 Jun 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Like a hospital hiring a janitor for a surgeon position.
Are you really comparing job qualifications to discriminating against a customer for being gay or black or Jewish?

Really?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2231 Jun 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a wedding cake used for? To celebrate a graduation, or a birthday? Forcing a person to use their talents to support something they don’t believe in is not right!
sort of like what you may be doing to people who work for topix?

But I'm glad you admit in a left handed way that it's religious discrimination and that is why the guy is guilty of breaking the law.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2232 Jun 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>

You, however, support government punishment for those who don't believe as you.
so what laws are just to you and which are not?

Do you support the government's war on drugs?

punishment for rape and child abuse?

making it OK to discriminate (against gays only btw) because of someone's religion?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2233 Jun 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“In case you haven't noticed, most religious people who support SSM are not trying to ignore the laws in States that still ban SSM.” This is a good thing and you should return the respect and allow them to believe in traditional marriage without fear of government punishment for your belief.
The Colorado Civil Liberty Commission is on record calling the legal matters of this case a “technicality” showing there bias as the same as you. They ignored the facts and the law to condemn the baker based on political correctness and personal bias.
They ignored the facts??????? Then why did the baker AGREE to all the findings of fact in this case? And what law did they ignore? There's no law that says a businessman can use his religious beliefs as an excuse for breaking the law. Perhaps you have no idea what you're talking about.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2234 Jun 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“No, you are a two faced liar, claiming to support individual freedom, while actually supporting oppression.” Show my post where I stated this?
“Face it kiddo, when business discriminates against a class of people, it is no different from an individual doing the same.” Like a hospital hiring a janitor for a surgeon position.
“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.”
I support “gay marriage”
I support Americans holding their beliefs without fear of loosing their livelihood.
You, however, support government punishment for those who don't believe as you.
The baker was not punished for his beliefs. He was punished for his actions. You can try to conflate the two, but you would be wrong. SCOTUS has ruled that the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

This argument was settled in 1878. Why is it you aren't up to speed?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2235 Jun 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you stand in support of government punishing Americans who don’t believe the same as you. Good to know.
Good to know that you are clueless. You should have paid attention in government class.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2236 Jun 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Was the baker FORCED out of his livelihood? Yes!
What BS.

He's still in business.

You're getting desperate and now just being downright dishonest.

Now explain why you oppose anti-discrimination laws.

Because that is the real issue here. It's not about SSM or religion. It's about enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

SO.....explain why you oppose anti-discrimination laws.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2237 Jun 12, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really comparing job qualifications to discriminating against a customer for being gay or black or Jewish?
Really?
Hundreds of millions of Americans believe in traditional marriage…  Are you prepared to have government force all of them to believe as you through punishment?&#8232;

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2238 Jun 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>sort of like what you may be doing to people who work for topix?
But I'm glad you admit in a left handed way that it's religious discrimination and that is why the guy is guilty of breaking the law.
There is our First Amendment…  Which you all seem to ignore.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2239 Jun 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>so what laws are just to you and which are not?
Do you support the government's war on drugs?
punishment for rape and child abuse?
making it OK to discriminate (against gays only btw) because of someone's religion?
&#8232;“But I'm glad you admit in a left handed way that it's religious discrimination and that is why the guy is guilty of breaking the law.”  
“Do you support the government's war on drugs?”  Yes.&#8232;&#8232;“pun ishment for rape and child abuse?” Yes&#8232;&#8232;“maki ng it OK to discriminate (against gays only btw) because of someone's religion?”  You statement is based on a lie…  He wasn’t discriminating against gays.  He was reserving the wedding cake for husband and wife couples because that is his belief…  Not for drugs or child abuse.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2240 Jun 12, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
They ignored the facts??????? Then why did the baker AGREE to all the findings of fact in this case? And what law did they ignore? There's no law that says a businessman can use his religious beliefs as an excuse for breaking the law. Perhaps you have no idea what you're talking about.
“They ignored the facts??????? Then why did the baker AGREE to all the findings of fact in this case? And what law did they ignore?”“The gay couple failed to sew Phillips individually before the statute of limitations expired” and “The division of civil rights never notified Phillips or the cake shop of the statute that he allegedly violated, never providing factual and legal basis, and was charged under the incorrect statute.” The Colorado Civil Liberties Commission called these legal facts “technicalities” in order to decide up their political bias.
 
“There's no law that says a businessman can use his religious beliefs as an excuse for breaking the law. Perhaps you have no idea what you're talking about.” The first Amendment. You don’t have to agree but the fact is the baker served gays all the time out of his shop.

So you are for government putting a American out of business in support of your belief. That’s sad.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2241 Jun 12, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
The baker was not punished for his beliefs. He was punished for his actions. You can try to conflate the two, but you would be wrong. SCOTUS has ruled that the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.
This argument was settled in 1878. Why is it you aren't up to speed?
Our First Amendment, provides protection for the baker, but because of your belief your goal is to put him out of business in favor of your belief... That’s not right and it’s unAmerican.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2242 Jun 12, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to know that you are clueless. You should have paid attention in government class.
The First Amendment is pretty clear, and when government entities, decide to ignore law calling it “mere technicalities” to render a bias decision... It’s time to take a step back and seriously look at what’s going on.

I support “gay marriage”, and I support Americans who desire to use their talents to support their belief without being punished or put out of business.

You support gay marriage and ask government to force then to use their talents to support your belief or put them out of business.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2243 Jun 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>What BS.
He's still in business.
You're getting desperate and now just being downright dishonest.
Now explain why you oppose anti-discrimination laws.
Because that is the real issue here. It's not about SSM or religion. It's about enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
SO.....explain why you oppose anti-discrimination laws.
He has decided to close shop, because of the Colorado Civil Liberty Commissions, bias decision, to ignore law and force him to serve a wedding cake for an institution he dose not believe in.

The baker did NOT discriminate against gays, and in fact has served gays out of his shop.

The real issue here: is it right for government to force an American to use his personal talents to support an institution he doesn’t believe in, order him to do so or lose his livelihood.

So explain why you desire to use government force your beliefs upon a man who believes different as you?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2244 Jun 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hundreds of millions of Americans believe in traditional marriage…  Are you prepared to have government force all of them to believe as you through punishment?&#8232;
Nope. You can't force people to believe anything. And no one is trying to.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2245 Jun 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Our First Amendment, provides protection for the baker, but because of your belief your goal is to put him out of business in favor of your belief... That’s not right and it’s unAmerican.
The First Amendment does not allow one to break any laws they like.

If my religion promotes ritual sacrifice, do murder laws infringe upon my 1A rights?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2246 Jun 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is our First Amendment…  Which you all seem to ignore.
WRONG> Absolutely wrong.

In case you haven't noticed he is practicing his beliefs. I support his right to do so. His beliefs tell him he can ignore civil law and he did so. His ACTIONS caused him legal trouble and that is not his religion's fault. He even agreed to the finding of facts in the case, so why can't you?

He's still in business and in order to comply with his religious beliefs he has learned that if he sells wedding cakes he can't choose who he will sell them to based on his views of SSM, and so IN ORDER TO STAY FAITHFUL TO HIS BELIEFS, he decided he will no longer do wedding cakes.

I suppose you also agree with Scott Esk, a Republican Tea Party candidate in Oklahoma, when he said, "I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/11/scot...

What you refuse to accept is that the 1st Amendment's Religious Freedom Clause doesn't give people the right to ignore civil laws. Look at the Amish.

That is what YOU ignore.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 1 min TheTrioSpamGroup 5,594
News What does Ireland vote say about US debate on g... 9 min Novus Ordo Seclorum 10
Read This - Excellent Article 29 min Fa-Foxy 1
News Republic of Ireland votes for equal marriage 32 min Rose_NoHo 50
Memorial Day With NE Jade 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 25
Are the mods fair and balanced? 1 hr RnL2008 820
News Boy Scouts' leader speaks out on gay adults ban 2 hr NoahLovesU 55
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr NoahLovesU 33,160
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 4 hr WeTheSheeple 209
More from around the web