BluesStringer
Les Brers
These are the hardened criminals who now have a judgment against them for exercising their 1st Amendment rights of free speech by saying, "No" and being honest in their rationale for the "No" by telling the one lesbian who came into the store to place the order, "I'm sorry, but we don't do same sex weddings due to our religious beliefs," also exercising their 1st Amendment rights under the free exercise clause:
Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't discern any intent to commit a crime from either of those folks. If you believe their rendition of events, which I personally do, I can't even discern any intent to insult or even criticize the gay couple. The only intent I hear is that they wanted (and still want) to live their faith.
The kicker is that when this incident happened, gay marriage was illegal in OR, so if it really is "discrimination" to criticize homosexuality (as is alleged in Farmhood's link) according to OR statutes, it's only discriminatory if a citizen does it, but just fine and dandy if the state does (or did before the recent SCOTUS ruling as the case may be).
Of course, we're just supposed to ignore that the state and the state's largest LBGT-"rights" organization appear to have been in collusion throughout the process leading up to the $135K judgment. Nothing to see here. No Christian discrimination/persecution going on here. No violations of the bakery owners' civil rights going on here. No conflicts of interest between the state, judges, legal teams and the LGBT group going on here. Move along, nothing to see here at all.
