• Pingback: Religious refusal to bake for a gay wedding may cost bakery $135,000 - by Rev. Ron Gronowski - Rev Ron Gronowski - The Reverend()

  • Doc Anthony

    Constitutional religious freedoms are hereby **repealed** for all individual Christian small-business owners, by order of Judge Alan McCullough.

    Effective today, all Christian-related or church-related businesses or facilities who do not kowtow immediately, when asked by homosexual and lesbian customers, to violate their own biblical Christian beliefs and conscience by tacitly or overtly participating in a gay wedding or gay reception/celebration in some manner, are subject to Economic Kristallnacht (see above fines) as punishment.

    The End. Carry on.

  • Larry

    The bakers argument, “laws don’t apply to me because I am a Christian”.

    The reference to Samaritan’s Purse is important. More proof Franklin Graham is a useless parasite glomming off his famous father. The “charity” is notorious for blatant prosletyzing efforts. Now we know they support discrimination as well.

  • Joe Franko

    Can someone explain how the bakery violated the law for not providing services for an event which at the time (2013 in the state of Oregon) was not lawful itself? If gay weddings were not lawful and the service provider declined to support the unlawful event, how is that illegal discrimination?

    And if it indeed was not illegal discrimination, could the State of Oregon be liable for economic and emotional damages to the bakery?

  • Joe Franko

    Larry, what laws would you purport the bakers broke given that gay marriage was not legal in Oregon at that time?

    Also, would you consider your perspective on people of faith to be one of open-mindedness and tolerance?

  • Larry

    Read the article! The bakers broke the state antidiscrimination laws.

    Your faith is not an excuse to harm others or ignore laws of general application. It is no more an exercise of religion than refusing to pay your taxes on faith grounds.

  • Larry

    Because the state already had laws making discrimination in open commerce against gays illegal. One does not require a legal marriage to order a wedding cake.

    It is obvious you have not really read the article or availed yourself of the basic facts here.

  • Joe Frano

    Larry, your comment “one does not require a legal marriage to order a wedding cake” is a good one. I am far removed from that kind of an industry and frankly don’t know that works but I supposed I’d find it hard to believe that the fact that gay marriage did not become legal until the following year to be irrelevant.

    Given your choice of words and tone I do think my question to you, while perhaps off topic, is a fair one.

    Would you consider your perspective on people of faith to be one of open-mindedness and tolerance?

    My money says no. Which undercuts the credibility of your position I’m afraid.

  • Larry

    You missed the relevant elements of the article. I am not taking you seriously.

    You are asking me to be open minded about malicious discriminatory behavior, arrogance in the form of alleged religious belief and using Gods name to flaunt laws.

    Get bent.

    I don’t have to be tolerant of your desire to harm others in the name of your faith. You don’t understand the meaning of the words “open minded”. Your use of the term is repugnant.

  • Garson Abuita

    Joe, many gay couples used to have
    ‘commitment ceremonies” at which the trappings of a wedding were present. There was nothing illegal about that and likely was what occurred with this couple. The only issue was whether a marriage license could be issued for such a ceremony. If the couple merely had wanted to celebrate their long-standing relationship with a party and cake, but not called it a wedding, the Oregon anti-discrimination laws still would have applied. What you call the event is irrelevant.
    Another more technical legal point is that the bakery told the couple it would not do so because it disagreed with gay marriage from a religious perspective. They never said they refused to do the cake because such a ceremony purportedly would be illegal. They thus could not make that claim in court later.
    ,

  • Shawnie5

    This particular couple will be all right. They recovered almost the entire amount of the fine during the first few hours the fund was operative. By the time this is over hopefully the Kleins can take early retirement courtesy of the gay marriage bullies.

  • Joe

    These women were not harmed. There are plenty of bakeries around. Where is all the :”Love” and “Tolerance” the homosexual community always talks about? This is blatant selective discrimination against Christians. They were cherry-picked to get harrassed by the homosexuals, who have taken intolerance to a new low.

  • James Carr

    Incredible that the GoFund Me site closed itself to any further donations. The gays must either run the site or threatened political execution. Reason number 8,278,453 for denial of gay marriage.

  • Shawnie5

    What’s incredible is that they think they can prevent Christians from supporting the brethren in this way.

    The earliest Christians supported each other across hundreds of miles of Roman dirt road. This is absolutely a snap.

  • Shawnie5

    You should google the complainants’ litany of the “symptoms” that they claim they suffered as a result of not getting one of the Kleins’ cakes: migraine headaches, “paleness,” high blood pressure, excessive sleep, resumption of smoking habit (I kid you not)…and the funniest of all..”loss of appetite” and “weight gain” (simultaneously, of course).

    Seriously…weight gain from not getting a cake.

    If anything ought to be illegal, it’s this kind of shameless fraud.

  • Tom Downd

    do you suppose when they gather for worship, instead of pews the room is full of ovens, work tables, and industrial sized mixers. Worship involves baking Jesus cakes, Bible cakes, and the ever popular praying hands cake. Wedding cakes are therefore a religious experience. Makes sense to me.

  • Ted

    Snap as in breakage, that is.

  • PeterVN

    As the fine old quote goes,

    “Religion is for the ignorant, the gullible, the cowardly, and the stupid, and for those who would profit from them. ”

    This one would be on the profit side. Or was, until it got shut down.

  • PeterVN

    Jesus cakes sound disgusting.

  • Shawnie5

    Not a profit yet, but there probably will be. A well-deserved one, too. And all thanks to the efforts of your ilk. Thanks a bunch — couldn’t have done it without you!

  • PeterVN

    No, Shawnie. The gay marriage battle is clearly being won by supporters of gay marriage, against the very horrid, bigoted people of your ilk. It isn’t a short battle, but you are losing it fairly quickly. That is good news for freedom. And you should be ashamed of yourself for the bigots..

    All that is happening re the donations is redistribution of funds among the stupid.

    Shame on you, Shawnie5. And yes, you are losing. Check back in a decade and history will show that clearly.

  • PeterVN

    The “shameless fraud” is your religion, Shawnie. Shame on you, bigot.

  • PeterVN

    Too funny, the long-oppressed gays being called “bullies”.

    Shawnie, the cr@p that you and your ilk have flung at gays for decades is hitting you back in the face hard and you deserve it. Get used to the taste of your own medicine. Swallow hard.

  • Susan

    I don’t think the Kleins will get much in the way of retirement on the tune of $150K, or less that they got. They’ll not be in sunny climes for long for less than solidly into 7 figures.

  • Shawnie5

    They made that money in less than 8 hours. After several days the figures could climb quite high. Lord knows they have a lot more to be compensated for than Memories Pizza did and Memories made out quite nicely.

  • Shawnie5

    I agree that the Kleins deserve every bit of the thousands that your ilk are putting in their pockets. Thanks.

  • Greg

    I like the solution a Catholic priest offered for these in-your-face challenges by the gay lobby. Say yes we will bake your cake, and cater your wedding, but 100% of the money we receive from these will be given directly to our favorite Pro-Traditional Family organization. And to boot, if you want us to cater your wedding, we will do so, but wear our religious garb, don rosaries around our necks, wearing religious T-shirts with loud religious statements on them, and pray loudly for your salvation the whole time. For more, go to this site: http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/christians-gays-well-accept-your-business-and-donate-your-money-traditional

  • shawnie5

    Thanks for the compliment, Pete. I’d be seriously concerned if you were telling me how great I was, considering the thoroughly despicable actio of the pair you’re championing here.

    And thanks, BTW, for demonstrating up above exactly what all this nonsense is about. Not justice, not reason, not actual compensation, not equality — but simply “hitting back in the face.” Kind of you to clarify that for everyone just in case it wasn’t already obvious.

  • shawnie5

    The gay marriage thing is not my battle. All kinds of reprehensible things go on under color of law and it doesn’t affect any of us that much. Knock yourself out. However, it is a different matter when you start trying to drag others to your tea parties and make them participate. You’re in danger of overplaying your hand here, because the rarity of these instances, as well as the massive support that ensues when they do come up, tells me that most Americans, however they feel about gay marriage, really don’t want to see children hurt and families bankrupted over silliness like cakes and flowers.

  • shawnie5

    Like it. Actually Ben suggested something like this himself.

  • Bobby Stern

    While there is banter on both sides, I think any fair minded individual reading this thread can see that the mean spirited name calling and ill-wishing is done by those favoring gay marriage. Why is that?

    How does calling people parasites because you disagree with their world view embody the values of love, open mindedness, and tolerance?

    If we were to only love and peaceably accept those people whose views we also share and not stand up to the test of a differing viewpoint then what does that say about the depth of our character?

    I know several hundred people of faith. And I’ve personally never known a single one to ever hate a gay person or their hopes and dreams, despite the differing of views. Quite the opposite really.

    Saying that holding a view that doesn’t include the belief of others is hate is a baseless argument because by the very act of saying so you are excluding the belief of others and thus “hating” by your own definition.

    Value love and…

  • Bobby Stern

    *Value love and tolerance and open-mindedness?

    How about showing it?

  • Pam

    It’s just moving money around. A lot of other believers are poorer as a result. And for a really prejudiced bad cause. It’s shameful the hate those supposed Christians are showing to gays who want to be in loving, recognized union. Those are not good Christians who oppose that.

  • Pam

    Shawnie. I think PeterV is right about you. You show yourself to be very hateful and prejudiced here. Shame on you. Show Christian love not hate as you do above.

  • Ted

    Your prior words give lie to your latest claim, Shawnie5. This obviously is a battle of yours.

  • Ted

    Just redistribution of funds among idiots. Nothing more.

  • Bobby Stearn

    Question: should “gay bakeries” or LGBT bakery owners be allowed to decline service for someone wanting a cake for a pro-Biblical marriage event? Or any cause/belief they don’t believe in?

    It’s a documented fact that this has happened (and not so respectfully) yet what attorney general or administrative law clerk has championed their cause?

  • Whatever

    Nothing was repealed. You see, religious freedom does not mean being able to freely discriminate against others due to your religion.

    If you have a business open to the public you are required to provide that service to the public regardless race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. If you refuse service based on one of those criteria you have broken the law. Legally, that’s really the end of it. That’s how it already was.

    Now, what I find funny about this is that a business has the right to refuse service, just not for one of the above reasons. You can say no, you just have to not be stupid enough to say that’s why. So the bakery? They could have said they were all booked up for that time frame and left it at that. This is a case of business sense Darwinism. The owners of the bakery were their own worst enemy. They decided to make it a statement, a condemnation… and they are paying for it. Both in lost business and fines.

  • Whatever

    Where is it a documented fact that this happened? I doubting you can provide proof of this.

    Still, if someone running a public business refused to make a cake specifically due to it being for a religious event… yes, they should be in trouble too.

  • Diogenes

    Closest thing to a case in point is the Colorado bakery that refused to provide a cake that was religion themed with bible verses decrying the practice of sodomy. Not a very subtle attempt by the would be customer to cram the shoe on the other foot…still, by all the arguments made by Larry (For example) about the inviolate character of the Law, administrative or otherwise, this would seem to meet the case of refusing to provide a good or service solely out of a spirit of conviction, which Larry absolutely has disallowed in every argument he has made. Yet an administrative branch of local government upheld the bakery’s refusal. I see a double standard.
    On a different tack, a Kentucky circuit court has upheld the right of a business that prints promotional items (T-shirts, etc.) to refuse orders from customers that advertise events endorsing homosexuality, citing speech and religious freedoms. The ruling, of course is being appealed.
    Note to Shawnie5: You Go Girl.

  • Shawnie5

    Nonsense. Nobody is “poorer” as a result. There are more than enough biblically-oriented Christians out there to compensate the Kleins, Memories, and any other targeted brethren for the cost of standing up to bullies with mere pocket change.

    And if compensation turns to profit, well, you guys have only yourselves to thank.

  • Shawnie5

    Who am I hating? I’m talking about fraud and spite here. I freely admit to hating those things — sorry you don’t. So you’re saying you find it acceptable for these complainants to take food out of the mouths of five children in order to compensate themselves for their own “weight gain?” Or better yet, to buy their cigs for the smoking habit the Kleins “caused?” Over a cake? Well, thank you for demonstrating your values. Not a huge leap from there to the emails sent to the Kleins with wishes that their children get sick…

  • Shawnie5

    Nope. I don’t support it and wouldn’t vote for it, but as long as it truly doesn’t affect us (as we were all assured it would not but we always knew was a lie) I could care less who or what rubberstamps your living arrangements. My concern is for those targeted for retaliation for not wanting to be a party to it.

  • Wesley K.

    Wrong ShawnieS. Many people are obviously poorer since they have less money (duh), and also, transaction costs are typically nonzero.

    Wow, you’re really not very bright.

  • Susan

    Shawnie many of the adjectives you use are hurtful and hateful. Relax a bit and show love and compassion instead. It will move you forward in Christ.

  • Susan

    Put your fists down then Shawnie and show love. Don’t be doing the fight if you are truly not in it.

  • Bobby Stearn

    @Whatever:

    Here’s some documentation:
    http://www.bilerico.com/2014/12/gay_ohio_baker_refuses_to_serve_christian_couple.php

    http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service/

    Regarding the Youtube video, one may not agree with the intent or the approach of the caller but what seems to be clear is that in all 13 cases the “customer” was denied service because the provider did not want to violate their beliefs, and felt they deserved the right to be able to deny such service.

    But @Whatever, while I appreciate your comment that “yes, they should be in trouble too” in support of equal treatment here, my person opinion is that they should not be in trouble. I think they should have the right to not be forced to do something they don’t believe in, just as I think pro-traditional marriage folks should also not be forced. More freedom in America, rather than forced compulsion.

  • Bobby Stearn

    Reply below in case you didn’t see it. There are other links on the matter if you google it.

  • Ben in oakland

    And where is the love and acceptance the conservative Christians are always going on about? Listening to so many of you call us bullies, gaystapo, fascists, per ergs, haters of freedom, and on and on and on and on?

  • Ben in oakland

    Are you seriously that ignorant?

    The EVENT was not unlawful, which is a nice change of direction. The EVENT was perfectly lawful, but it would not result in a LEGAL marriage.

    and in fact, since it wasn’t actually a marriage in any sense of the word, except to the two people involved, what exactly were these so-called Christians actually participating in that bothered them so much? Neither a legal marriage, nor a religious marriage.

    All you are claiming is a right to religious exceptionalism.

  • Larry

    Why not. Christian hysterics are used to lining the pockets of undeserving hucksters for silly reasons.

  • Larry

    Obviously the court didn’t agree with you. They found damages for the plaintiffs here. Discrimination in open commerce is a legally recognized form of harm. In Oregon, according to their laws discriminating in business against gays is on par with doing so because the customer is black.

    It wasn’t selective discrimination by anyone other than the Kleins. They chose to break laws to their own detriment. Tough crap. Being Christian does not mean you get to follow laws out of convenience. You have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

  • Larry

    Those anti-discrimination laws are so inconvenient. God commands you to be a harmful malicious jerk to customers. How dare the civil laws get in the way of your right to attack other people in a public setting!

  • Larry

    Hey unless you can come up with a good reason to amend the anti-discrimination laws of Oregon to drop sexual orientation, you don’t even have a decent moral reason for refusing service in this case.

    You don’t have a right to engage in discriminatory conduct in your business. There is no such thing as a “well meaning discriminator”. The act is always malicious and intentional in nature. It is not an act of conscience.

    Your problem Diogenes is your dishonest conflation of several events/facts to be the equivalent to discriminatory conduct. They never are. There are always ways business can handle unreasonable demands/customers which do not involve discrimination. In the counter-examples the facts showed they were. Your unwillingness to consider alternative actions simply means you are too stupid to be in open commerce. If Christians are so intellectually defective as to not considering such options, they do so at their own risk.

  • Larry

    Now do you have the story from the original source or are you just going to rely on selective editing. One thing about typical stories of American Christians being “discriminated against” is that facts tend to be altered to suit the screed. In most cases the Christians and their supporters flat out lie about the given facts to claim to be victims.

    The Colorado case was a perfect example of how a non-idiot handles an unreasonable customer request. The baker never refused service. She was willing to bake the cake and allow the customer the means of putting their own message on it. The case was a set-up by some truly brain dead fundies to create a counter example to well documented cases of discrimination on their part.

  • Larry

    The first story has this caption
    “Guest blogger Erik Deckers is a satirist. He’s a writer who writes satire, and has written a satirical newspaper column for nearly twenty years. That means there’s a good chance this is also satire, and never actually happened.”

    The second one actually demonstrates how reasonable people deal with unreasonable customers. The Colorado baker never refused service to the Christian bigot. She was willing to bake the cake and gave the customer means of writing his own message. The whole thing was a set up by silly fundies who really didn’t know what they were doing.

  • Larry

    Bobby, there is nothing baseless about the criticism of your position. You are supporting discrimination of people in open commerce on the basis of religious based prejudice. Your view is repugnant and unworthy of respect. Take your notions of “tolerance” and “fairness”. and stuff them.

    You want legalized bigotry, but are annoyed when called out on it. Tough luck.
    The name calling is appropriate. Instead of whining about labels, grow a backbone.

  • Shawnie5

    I’m afraid in this case is was gay marriage bully hysterics that did it.

    Something called proximate cause. AKA “but for.” AKA, “Thanks, bullies!”

  • Shawnie5

    I bought a coffee on my way out this morning. Am I poorer because of it? Not measurably, no.

    With about that much money, millions of bible-believing Christians (and yes, there are millions of us) could reward this couple quite handsomely for the courageous stand they took. So if it makes you feel better to imagine us all a couple of bucks “poorer,” go right ahead.

  • Shawnie5

    @Susan: I didn’t use any adjectives in the above exchange at all except “despicable” and “shameless” with regard to the actions of these two complainants, and I stand by that. Even the judge that ruled against the Kleins didn’t consider one of the two complainants a credible witness. It IS despicable and shameless to take food from the mouths of five children over a cake, particularly on the pretext of such patently absurd “symptoms.”

    @Larry: There was no ‘they’ involved. This travesty was the doing of one administrative judge. And what is outrageous is not really the finding of discrimination itself if that is what the people of that state actually voted to put into law, but the award of damages.

    Weight gain…from NOT getting a cake. Can this get any more fabulously absurd?

  • Shawnie5

    I’m not hitting anybody, unlike your friend Pete up there who described his side’s intentions and motivations in exactly those terms — thanks, Pete — but Christians are the body of Christ and when one of our brethren is being unjustly attacked we are unfortunately “in it” whether we want to be or not.

  • Larry

    I still can’t believe you still try to spin the Memories Pizza thing into something other than Christian bigots being duped into giving money on phony outrage.

    I guess its a bit of sunk costs fallacy. You guys already threw the money away and need to justify it to yourselves. Convince yourselves you weren’t really so stupid and easily led. I guess this is why televangelists have Gulfstream jets and their audience usually live in trailer parks and public housing.

    Whatever helps you sleep at night. Keep telling yourself it was a good cause 🙂

  • Susan

    @Shawnie good for you admitting your use of those hurtful, hateful terms. One good step toward love is acknowledging that you hated as you did.

    Love is the best medicine and you can take lots of it. Have a good day!

  • Susan

    Shawnie I meant that metaphorically, and you know it. You did the fightling.

    Now put your fists down and show love. Love is the best medicine to heal from. Have a good loving day.

  • Shawnie5

    But for you and yours, Larry….

    Thanks, sweetie!

  • Shawnie5

    You’re welcome, Susan. And good for you for admitting your support for overt fraud and greed and exhorting us to “love” it. Says volumes.

  • CRZ

    We fought this battle in the South in the 50s and 60s, at lunch counters, buses, etc. We said, “If you are going to do business in the US, civil law says you serve everyone equally. And “All Christians” are being made to violate their consciences – Not all Christians believe as you and many other do. I think it has to be very scary for people who thought the world was one way and are now finding the world – and possibly their God – is passing them by.

  • Diogenes

    Really? Is that the best you’ve got? Your problem is you can’t see the forest for the trees. Your own hatred and bias against Christians makes you irrational. The stunt pulled in Colorado by the would be customer was rather silly, but unless you’re willing to fall back on the “We reserve the right…” argument, and it seems you are, there can be no legitimate legal basis to refuse service in this case, at least not based on all your past arguments. As for my own commercial ineptitude, I heartily agree, I have absolutely no business sense, I’ve spent my life trying to find a way to rub two nickels together. However, we were not talking about business sense, we were talking about serving anyone who walks through the door. I applaud you mental acuity as much as you generally denigrate mine. But your moral gymnastics, on ‘progressive’ issues are incomprehensible. There’s simply no There, there.

  • Diogenes

    A creative approach, but not strictly within the bounds of customer service. Perhaps If the Christian photographers, florists, bakers, and event venues had taken this approach, we could have avoided all this mess; but I doubt it. People who make a virtue out of their ‘oppression,’ (at least here in the pampered West) would somehow find discrimination in the method used by the Colorado bakery if the ideologies were reversed.

  • Shawnie5

    Yeah Larry, we know. The constant complainer about dishonesty advises dishonesty. Same old same old..

  • Larry

    Wasn’t me. But its nice to know you miss the point even when someone else brings it up. 🙂

  • Larry

    Are you going to seriously tell me it was somehow immoral for Oregon to include sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination laws? If not, then you can’t even claim “moral conscience” when violating it.

    Evidently the idea that commerce should be open and free of discrimination is somehow “anti-Christian”. That doesn’t speak well for Christians or their notions of morality.

    If you are so overcome with religious fervor and pangs of sectarian conscience that you can’t do business without discriminatory conduct, then open commerce is not for you.

    If the offending “Christian” businesses were not intending to act in an obnoxious and malicious manner to the gay customers, they would have been looking for some kind of reasonable actions to satisfy both customer and personal faith. Like the Colorado baker did. That was not ever the case. (Telling people to go elsewhere is not accommodation)

    They broke a fair and reasonable law for their faith. Boo hoo.

  • Larry

    Bobby’s first article obviously was a joke. He just didn’t realize it at the time.

    The baker in Colorado did not refuse the service or turn away the customer. There is nothing discriminatory about it. How is, “I will take your order and your money and deliver a product” anywhere close to “go away, I don’t serve your kind”? It isn’t. If the Kleins had acted in a similar manner, they would have saved themselves a huge fine and bad publicity.

    People who claim oppression because they are unable to oppress others cannot be taken seriously. People who ask for tolerance for their intolerance of others are a joke.

  • Wesley K.

    Shawnie5, your simpering attempt at “sweetness” is disgusting. PeterVN is absolutely right. For far too long have Christian bullies like you had their way in oppressing gays. Now we are overcoming you bullies at long last. Our time for freedom and equal rights is coming fast, despite your evil bullying.

    Shame on you, bully!

  • Wesley K.

    Shawnie, that’s a really deceitful statement that you just made.

    Again, shame on you, you awful and oppressive Christian bully.

  • Wesley K.

    Shawnie5, you are one of the bullies.

  • Shawnie5

    Really? What did I sue you for and for how much?

  • Shawnie5

    Oh, baloney. All your typical talking points, along with the same name as your typical bow-out response when you have lost an argument quite badly. Every bit as transparent as a “man” ranting about “slut-shaming.”

  • Shawnie5

    Not a bit. Anyone can easily scroll up and see exactly what I described as “shameless” and “despicable.” Susan thinks I should “love” it. Hope she doesn’t mind my quoting her on this, or Pete either.

  • Shawnie5

    Wesley, obviously nuance is a bit beyond you. I was not attempting to be “sweet,” as Larry well knows.

    And as I told Larry a while back, if I were you I’d be embarrassed to come on here sputtering and stammering with rage about the good fortune of people I hated. Have some self-respect.

    Hey Susan, Wesley has a “hateful and hurtful” adjective for us! Don’t you think he needs one of your exhortations to relax and show some “love?” 😀

  • Peter

    I really didn’t care what gays did as long as it doesn’t affect me but now I can see they can impose their will on others. If the gay couple had just bought a cake like anybody else I doubt the gay issue would have come up but no, they had to force the shop owners to do what they don’t believe it. This goes too far. The judge should be replaced too. Now I can see the gays want to impose their life style on the rest of us.

  • Wesley K.

    You aggressively support the case of the anti-gay bullies. This is seen throughout your comments.

    That is clearly where you have made your bed, and you are part of the bully gang even though you are trying to wriggle out of admitting to it.

  • Wesley K.

    Shawnie5, again you are trying to wriggle out of taking responsibility for what you have done. Your own words convict you.

    So again, shame on you, bully.

  • Wesley K.

    No, Shawnie, scrolling up shows you to be both deceitful and a bully.

    Finally at long last the discrimination by you and your terrible bully gang is being gradually overcome. I think part of your bitter tone is because you realize that.

    Let freedom and equality reign.

  • shawnie5

    I support the Kleins wholeheartedly. But they are not bullies. They did not attempt to force anyone into anything, they took nothing from anyone, they threatened no one, and were not dishonest. We need more families like them.

  • shawnie5

    Instead of calling names you are welcome to point out whatever it was you think I was “deceitful” about. But bitter? Absolutely not. I am literally delighted that the fine was so quickly wiped out, and that so many good, freedom-loving people realized the wrongness of its imposition and rallied to the support of a decent young family. That is why I commented in the first place, remember? All you have contributed here are personal attacks. Methinks you are the bitter one here.

  • Pingback: As Equal As Any Customer | West Sylvan Current Events()

  • Wesley K.

    Shawnie5, you were the argument loser here. Nowhere have you actually refuted either poster’s points. You just accuse and accuse, without substance. You are one mean person.

  • Pingback: Actor Patrick Stewart had the perfect response to the “gay cake” religious freedom case | Rare()

  • Pingback: Court Rules for Same-Sex Marriage: Why Bother to Vote? :: Stolinsky.com | Conservative political and social commentary()

  • Lou

    The Oregon bakery discrimination case proves that “sex rights” (which aren’t even mentioned in the First Amendment) can trump even religious freedom rights (listed FIRST in the First Amendment!) Since gonads are now exalted more than the God who made them, let’s change the name of that western state to “Oregonads”!