Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 38635 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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2817 Jul 27, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Can't explain it eh? That's because it doesn't exist. There's equal protection of the law and there's no equal protection of the law. There is no "greater degree of protection" of the law.
I am well aware that "in fact to marry more than one person is currently criminal in every state in the union." Bozo. WTF do you think I have been arguing with your dumbass about?
It shouldn't be criminal to marry the other consenting adult(s) of your choice. Every consenting adult human being must be free from religious, government, lides, or any other interference in choosing his family life whether homosexual, heterosexual, monogamous or polygamous.
Don't like poly fruitloops? Don't do it. Back off from good people who are just pursuing happiness just like you.
Frankie, I cannot help the fact that you have the intellect of a gnat, and continually try to inject utter irrelevant arguments onto threads where they do not belong.

The simply fact of the matter is that you are a troll, which is why you regularly return to an utterly off topic argument.

Face it, kiddo, same sex marriage and polygamy are completely separate and unrelated issues, and you have tacitly admitted that polygamous couples do seek greater protection of the law for three or more people to enter into one marriage.

The reality remains that you have no argument relevant to the topic, which you may have forgotten is anti-discrimination laws. Just as you have no valid argument against same sex marriage, or for polygamy.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2818 Jul 27, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie, I cannot help the fact that you have the intellect of a gnat, and continually try to inject utter irrelevant arguments onto threads where they do not belong.
The simply fact of the matter is that you are a troll, which is why you regularly return to an utterly off topic argument.
Face it, kiddo, same sex marriage and polygamy are completely separate and unrelated issues, and you have tacitly admitted that polygamous couples do seek greater protection of the law for three or more people to enter into one marriage.
The reality remains that you have no argument relevant to the topic, which you may have forgotten is anti-discrimination laws. Just as you have no valid argument against same sex marriage, or for polygamy.
Of course I have no valid argument against SSM. There are none. That's why I have supported it from day one.

I do have arguments for polygamy, you lie when you say I don't. Why do you lie?

Your argument against polygamy is "Frankie can't count good." Which is a stupid argument.

The bottom line, when we cut through all your bullsh!t is that I support marriage equality and you don't. The End.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2819 Jul 27, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
.... you have tacitly admitted that polygamous couples do seek greater protection of the law for three or more people to enter into one marriage.
I have done no such thing, liar.

How could I? I don't know what "greater protection" of the law is and you don't either.

Everyone gets equal protection. No more, no less. There is no such thing as "greater protection" if you continue to insist there is, explain it. WTF is it?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2820 Jul 29, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't. If you can show how the rest of the Bible changes the meaning of *that verse*, please do so.
<quoted text>
I gave you numerous examples. Do you deny them?
<quoted text>
How smokes you're delusional. They didn't have to "deal" with the immorality; they were the source of the immorality, and it was based on their religion.
<quoted text>
So therefore Christians are integrating modern, secular values into their moral systems. Certainly Christianity cannot be both strongly pro-gay rights AND strongly anti-gay rights.
<quoted text>
There are many more Bible verses that support the practice of slavery. I am trying to focus on one so you don't attempt to derail the conversation. It isn't going very well because you refuse to address that verse. Why?
<quoted text>
Can you name some of these secular societies?
<quoted text>
How so? I've given you a verse that specifically says you CAN have slaves.
<quoted text>
No, but clearly he didn't apply them to the practice of slavery, or he would have condemned it, rather than telling slaves to be dutiful for their masters and telling masters not to mistreat slaves. He didn't recognize that slavery *itself* is mistreatment.
<quoted text>
Apologies, 1 Timothy is written by Paul.
“No, I don't. If you can show how the rest of the Bible changes the meaning of *that verse*, please do so.” If you didn’t then why repeat the ONE verse?

“I gave you numerous examples. Do you deny them?” You need to cite your source before I can say either way. The spewing is all over the place.

“How smokes you're delusional. They didn't have to "deal" with the immorality; they were the source of the immorality, and it was based on their religion.” No, it is based on the sinful nature of humanity… If you truly read the Bible you would understand that.

“So therefore Christians are integrating modern, secular values into their moral systems. Certainly Christianity cannot be both strongly pro-gay rights AND strongly anti-gay rights.” If this is true where are the “secular values” that Christians and Jews are integrating to?

“There are many more Bible verses that support the practice of slavery. I am trying to focus on one so you don't attempt to derail the conversation. It isn't going very well because you refuse to address that verse. Why?” I have repeatedly addressed it pointing that you exclude the rest of the Bible… Please explain how Gods two greatest commands cause Christians to own slaves?

“Can you name some of these secular societies?” We can start with the warring tribes of Africa who would capture and sell their own into slavery… But the most prominent of Secular cultures to own slaves are, Soviet Russia under Joseph Stalin and Nazi Germany… Both societies had very similar thoughts as you.

“How so? I've given you a verse that specifically says you CAN have slaves.” If you believe that and trust in the God of the Bible, go ahead and see where it gets you.

“No, but clearly he didn't apply them to the practice of slavery, or he would have condemned it, rather than telling slaves to be dutiful for their masters and telling masters not to mistreat slaves. He didn't recognize that slavery *itself* is mistreatment.” You need to answer this question: Why does God have slavery in the Bible?


Ignorance.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2821 Jul 29, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you even know what arbitrary means.
<quoted text>
No, we shall not make driving cars illegal because they have an immense amount of utility that offsets the danger of accidents. See? REASON
<quoted text>
No, the concepts of freedom and peace, etc don't "come" from anywhere. Freedom just IS. Peace just IS.
Valuing them is based on reason.
And yes, you can point to who forms your moral and ethical values: primitive human beings who wrote down their opinions in a book. What a great source.
<quoted text>
How so? Tell me, how does valuing peace, compassion, safety, reason, knowledge, or any of the others things I mentioned lead to destruction?


“I don't think you even know what arbitrary means.”
ar·bi·trary adjective \&#712;är-b&#601;- &#716;trer-&#275;,- &#716;tre-r&#275;\
: not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence
: done without concern for what is fair or right
You posted that “secular values”“They don't "come" from anywhere;” There is nothing more arbitrary (: not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence
: done without concern for what is fair or right) than your very statement.

“No, the concepts of freedom and peace, etc don't "come" from anywhere. Freedom just IS. Peace just IS.” If that I s true then why is the no peace?

“Valuing them is based on reason.” Which is based on what?

“And yes, you can point to who forms your moral and ethical values: primitive human beings who wrote down their opinions in a book. What a great source.” As opposed to why you believe in which you state,“They don't "come" from anywhere;”.

“How so? Tell me, how does valuing peace, compassion, safety, reason, knowledge, or any of the others things I mentioned lead to destruction?” Joseph Stalin was a secularist, are you going to claim he has those values you speak of?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2822 Jul 29, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That has nothing to do with any secular values.
Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. A fertilized egg floating around in the fallopian tubes is not a pregnancy.
<quoted text>
I'm not. Your statement is false.
<quoted text>
Principles established by reason and experience.
<quoted text>
The god of the Bible cannot be considered loving by any reasonable definition. If any human behaves as the god of the Bible is said to, they'd be considered a monster. You only disagree because of your indoctrination.
And yes, completely arbitrary. IF the Bible said that wearing green shirts was evil, you would have to believe that wearing green shirts was evil. It's not based on any actual principles; it's simply declared. It's arbitrary.
I'm not sure why it's "LOL" funny that you worship a god who condoned slavery, rape, and genocide. That strikes me as sad.
“That has nothing to do with any secular values.

Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. A fertilized egg floating around in the fallopian tubes is not a pregnancy.”…

“I'm not. Your statement is false.” Joseph Stalin, and Hitler… History is what it is,

“Principles established by reason and experience.” Like Stalin’s reasons and experience or Hitler’s?

“The god of the Bible cannot be considered loving by any reasonable definition. If any human behaves as the god of the Bible is said to, they'd be considered a monster. You only disagree because of your indoctrination.” I disagree based on reason and my experience of who God is and His people are. Your ignorance prevents you from having any form of rational reason for anything.

“And yes, completely arbitrary. IF the Bible said that wearing green shirts was evil, you would have to believe that wearing green shirts was evil. It's not based on any actual principles; it's simply declared. It's arbitrary.” I believe slavery is immoral yet you claim the Bible says it is… So apparently you point is very poor. You are neck deep in ignorance.

“I'm not sure why it's "LOL" funny that you worship a god who condoned slavery, rape, and genocide. That strikes me as sad.” What’s sad is you claim to value knowledge yet have none of the Bible.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2823 Jul 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If business owners need only assert "religious belief" to be exempt from compliance with anti-discrmination laws, then there is no legitimate way to draw the line to apply it only to wedding vendors. Either we have freedom of religion for everyone or we don't. This will enable any business owner refuse to sell goods or services to not only gays, but blacks, women, the disabled or whomever else is the target of one's prejudicial religious beliefs. Because such beliefs have been asserted in the past to justify slavery, segregation, denying women the right to vote, etc. That you personally don't share such religious beliefs and might not make such assertions doesn't change the fact others have in the past.
The issue is the institution of marriage, which directly effects the wedding industry. It is not ok to discriminate in GENERAL however it is not appropriate to force person of religion who are in the industry to support or participate in soothing that they don not believe or support. Just like it isn’t appropriate for the government to force a gay graphic designer to make gay hate signs or cater and gay hate event… How Americans preach tolerance while being so intolerant of another is way beyond me.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2824 Jul 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The issue is the institution of marriage, which directly effects the wedding industry. It is not ok to discriminate in GENERAL however it is not appropriate to force person of religion who are in the industry to support or participate in soothing that they don not believe or support. Just like it isn’t appropriate for the government to force a gay graphic designer to make gay hate signs or cater and gay hate event… How Americans preach tolerance while being so intolerant of another is way beyond me.
Sorry, Respect, this reasoning was soundly refuted by the Colorado Administrative Law Judge, and unanimously upheld by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The baker was not kept from speaking his mind, he was not prevented form entering a house of worship, he was not refused the right to pray, or to worship the religion of his choosing, or to enter into a marriage that he finds to be sinful. He was asked to bake a cake, and in refusing service he both broke Colorado State law, and sought to make his would-be clients conform to his religious moral views in order to obtain service.

If anyone's religious freedom was infringed upon here, it wasn't the baker's, nor would providing the service have in any way infringed upon the baker's rights.

Those on your side regularly assert that the baker's rights would be violated by providing service to a same sex couple, but none of you have been particularly successful in articulating specifically how you feel those rights would be infringed upon by providing such a service.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2825 Jul 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
If you didn’t then why repeat the ONE verse?
Because that verse is about the topic we're talking about.
Respect71 wrote:
You need to cite your source before I can say either way. The spewing is all over the place.
I did cite a source. I gave you a poll showing that some Christians support gay marriage and others don't.
Respect71 wrote:
“How smokes you're delusional. They didn't have to "deal" with the immorality; they were the source of the immorality, and it was based on their religion.” No, it is based on the sinful nature of humanity… If you truly read the Bible you would understand that.
The Bible promotes that behavior.
Respect71 wrote:
If this is true where are the “secular values” that Christians and Jews are integrating to?
Where are they? What does that even mean? Values don't have a location.
Respect71 wrote:
I have repeatedly addressed it pointing that you exclude the rest of the Bible
You have not addressed it even once. You are LYING.
Respect71 wrote:
“Can you name some of these secular societies?” We can start with the warring tribes of Africa who would capture and sell their own into slavery… But the most prominent of Secular cultures to own slaves are, Soviet Russia under Joseph Stalin and Nazi Germany… Both societies had very similar thoughts as you.
Nazi Germany was a Christian nation. Virtually every German was a practicing Christian and they held a long-standing hatred of Jews based off of Christian writers like Martin Luther and the idea that the Jews killed Christ.

Neither Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia had similar thoughts to me.
Respect71 wrote:
Why does God have slavery in the Bible?
I have answered it: because the people who wrote the Bible wanted to practice slavery. So, they said that God approved of it.

Now YOU answer it: why does the Bible god tell the Hebrews that slavery was okay?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2826 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Respect, this reasoning was soundly refuted by the Colorado Administrative Law Judge, and unanimously upheld by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The baker was not kept from speaking his mind, he was not prevented form entering a house of worship, he was not refused the right to pray, or to worship the religion of his choosing, or to enter into a marriage that he finds to be sinful. He was asked to bake a cake, and in refusing service he both broke Colorado State law, and sought to make his would-be clients conform to his religious moral views in order to obtain service.
If anyone's religious freedom was infringed upon here, it wasn't the baker's, nor would providing the service have in any way infringed upon the baker's rights.
Those on your side regularly assert that the baker's rights would be violated by providing service to a same sex couple, but none of you have been particularly successful in articulating specifically how you feel those rights would be infringed upon by providing such a service.
The baker is FORCED for support and participate in an institution that goes against what he believes. The service provides a cake for a wedding of a husband and wife, NOW, because of the ruling he can no longer provide that service to husbands and wives without fear of persecution… So he quit. You successfully punished a man for NOT believing as you.

A case will eventually go to SCOTUS and we will see it as un-constitutional.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2827 Jul 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“No, the concepts of freedom and peace, etc don't "come" from anywhere. Freedom just IS. Peace just IS.” If that I s true then why is the no peace?
There is peace.
Respect71 wrote:
“Valuing them is based on reason.” Which is based on what?
What is reason based on? Rules of logic. Senses. Experience.
Respect71 wrote:
“How so? Tell me, how does valuing peace, compassion, safety, reason, knowledge, or any of the others things I mentioned lead to destruction?” Joseph Stalin was a secularist, are you going to claim he has those values you speak of?
No, clearly he did not. He didn't value any of those things.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2828 Jul 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“Principles established by reason and experience.” Like Stalin’s reasons and experience or Hitler’s?
Stalin and Hitler's primary concerns were power. They put that above all else.
Respect71 wrote:
“The god of the Bible cannot be considered loving by any reasonable definition. If any human behaves as the god of the Bible is said to, they'd be considered a monster. You only disagree because of your indoctrination.” I disagree based on reason and my experience of who God is and His people are. Your ignorance prevents you from having any form of rational reason for anything.
You disagree because you're brainwashed with your silly religion. If I told you of a person who murdered small children, told his followers that rape and slavery were okay, commanded them to commit genocide, and tortured people who did not follow him, you'd say that person was a monster. But because that person is your god, you pretend otherwise.
Respect71 wrote:
I believe slavery is immoral yet you claim the Bible says it is
Of course you believe slavery is immoral. You recognize it as harmful, cruel, and dehumanizing. The Bible does not.

See? The morals you developed yourself are already superior to the Bible's.
Respect71 wrote:
What’s sad is you claim to value knowledge yet have none of the Bible.
No, what's sad is that I'm an atheist and my Bible knowledge far exceeds yours, even though it's your holy book.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2829 Jul 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The baker is FORCED for support and participate in an institution that goes against what he believes.
False. The baker simply has to create a cake, which is an action that is clearly not against his belief system.
Respect71 wrote:
A case will eventually go to SCOTUS and we will see it as un-constitutional.
Not a chance. Anti-discrimination laws have already been established as Constitutional.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2830 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The baker was not kept from speaking his mind, he was not prevented form entering a house of worship, he was not refused the right to pray, or to worship the religion of his choosing, or to enter into a marriage that he finds to be sinful. He was asked to bake a cake, and in refusing service he both broke Colorado State law, and sought to make his would-be clients conform to his religious moral views in order to obtain service.
His 1st amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion were violated. He never made any attempt to have the gay men conform to anything.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2831 Jul 29, 2014
Respect, I'm not going to continue the slavery discussion unless you answer a simple question:

WHY does the Bible god tell the Hebrews, numerous times, that they are allowed to capture, purchase, and own slaves?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2832 Jul 29, 2014
You really need to change your name, Respect doesn't fit you.
Might I suggest Liar71?
Respect71 wrote:
The baker is FORCED for support and participate in an institution that goes against what he believes.
No, Respect, he wasn't. He illegally denied service, and then lost in court. Rather than provide service in a tolerant manner in the future,he elected to stop providing wedding cakes to anyone. Apparently, bigotry was more important than business to him.
Respect71 wrote:
The service provides a cake for a wedding of a husband and wife, NOW, because of the ruling he can no longer provide that service to husbands and wives without fear of persecution…
Providing the service in no way infringes upon his religious beliefs. He could bake the cake, and still hold those same beliefs, not marry someone of the same sex himself, attend the same church, and be the same bigot he always was, he would just be one wedding cake richer.
Respect71 wrote:
So he quit.
Actually, he stopped offering one service. It does not paint you as a very truthful person when you lie like this.
Respect71 wrote:
You successfully punished a man for NOT believing as you.
A case will eventually go to SCOTUS and we will see it as un-constitutional.
He wasn't punished. He broke the law and suffered no penalty or jail time, he was merely instructed to provide his wedding cake services equally to all, and he elected to provide them not at all.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2833 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
His 1st amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion were violated..
No, they weren't. He wasn't prevented from making any speech nor forced to make any speech. His freedom of religion does not allow him to break laws simply because he has a problem with them.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2834 Jul 29, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The issue is the institution of marriage, which directly effects the wedding industry.
No, the issue is exemption from laws in general based on asserted conflicts with religious beliefs. You can't just arbitrarily draw the line where you find it convenient as the constitutional principle of equal protection doesn't allow that. Similarly situated people must be treated the same.
Respect71 wrote:
It is not ok to discriminate in GENERAL
Why should gays be exempted from this general principle?
Respect71 wrote:
however it is not appropriate to force person of religion who are in the industry to support or participate in soothing that they don not believe or support.
If people are unable to comply with the laws that govern and regulate the business or industry in which they wish to work, they should find a different occupation.
Respect71 wrote:
Just like it isn’t appropriate for the government to force a gay graphic designer to make gay hate signs or cater and gay hate event…
The government doesn't compel businesses to engage in speech with which they disagree. I already told you what the current constitutional law is on this topic. The problem is you erroneously consider baking a cake or catering a meal or taking a picture as "speech" when the law doesn't. You also erroneously consider running a business an act of worship when the law doesn't.
Respect71 wrote:
How Americans preach tolerance while being so intolerant of another is way beyond me.
How some Americans use God as an excuse to discriminate against others is way beyond me.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2835 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
His 1st amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion were violated.
No they weren't. None of our rights are absolute and every right is subject to government regulation within the parameters allowed by the constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS. Anti-disrmination laws have been upheld as constitutional and neither speech nor religion are sacred cows exempt from such regulation.
Wondering wrote:
He never made any attempt to have the gay men conform to anything.
On the contrary, the baker made it clear his wedding cakes had conditions attached with which the purchasers must comply if they wished to purchase a wedding cake for themselves. Unfortunately for the baker, his conditions meant he did not offer his wedding cakes to the general public but only to a subset of the general public that excluded a protected class of people in violation Colorado anti-discrmination law.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2836 Jul 29, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
No they weren't. None of our rights are absolute and every right is subject to government regulation within the parameters allowed by the constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.
I might add to this excellent analysis, that the baker's rights were never even threatened, and their assertion that they somehow have a right to discriminate against those who believe differently is patently absurd. This notion was pointed out by the court, and affirmed unanimously by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

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 Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 5 min Brian_G 1,139
News How Democratic VP Candidate Tim Kaine Evolved o... 5 hr Cordwainer Trout 7
BIG LABOR DAY WEEKEND PaRTAAY 5 hr Tex 8
News Clooney's restraining order 5 hr Here is what I 28
News Warnings of meningococcal disease among SoCal g... 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 9
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 6 hr kuda 199
News GOP day one in Cleveland: No unisex bathrooms 6 hr TerriB1 91
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 14,865
More from around the web