Because already causing a small business to shut down was not enough, a selfish and narcissistic same-sex lesbian couple has now used the armed power of the State to legally steal from a bakery business’s Christian owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, in the form of suing them for $135,000 for the “emotional, mental, and physical suffering” that the lesbian couple had to endure during the whole ordeal that they caused! The Kleins didn’t want to bake the lesbian couple a cake for their wedding because the Kleins oppose same-sex marriage.
Which is their right to refuse in a free society, of course. But Amerika is no longer a free society, in which, in the name of “civil rights,” society has chosen to sacrifice freedom of contract, voluntary association and property rights to take a back seat to social activism and empowering such activists to shove their views and lifestyles down the throats of others.
Lesbian couple Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman could easily have found any number of bakeries in their area who would bake them a cake, but they chose to harass and persecute the Christian business owners to the point of shutting down their business. According to WND,
Bureau prosecutors sought $75,000 for each woman – $150,000 total – during a hearing on damages in March. Under the commissioner’s ruling, Rachel Bowman-Cryer should collect $75,000 and her “wife,” Laurel Bowman-Cryer, will collect $60,000. The couple testified in March to the emotional stress they attributed to their experience with Sweet Cakes, including the glare of media attention that followed.
Well, if you didn’t want “the glare of media attention” then what was the whole point of harassing some innocent couple who didn’t want to bake a cake for you? And it seems obvious that the priority for the lesbians was not to find a bakery who would bake them a cake, but to make an example out of the Christian couple and drag them through a stressful legal battle. Otherwise, the lesbian couple would have just gone to a different bakery. Most businesses are eager for your patronage, and they don’t care about your personal lifestyle. Don’t you know that?
Another issue I don’t hear discussed is that, because the Christian business owners did not want to serve the brides-to-be, the selfish brides-to-be used the armed power of the government to coerce or force the bakers to serve them, or punish them for not serving. In other words, to force the business owners to do extra labor to serve the lesbians’ needs, involuntarily.
Yes, I’m sure there are those readers out there who are snickering with contempt that I would actually suggest the concept of “involuntary servitude,” but that is exactly what it is. When you force others to do extra labor to serve you against their will and against their personal conscience, that is exactly what that is. You can rationalize it, make excuses, say “But they’re ‘haters,’ and ‘haters’ should not be allowed to refuse work and shouldn’t resist involuntary labor” (even though the Cristian couple do not seem to be motivated by “hate”). Here you are really saying that because of their attitude or mindset that you feel is the wrong attitude or mindset, therefore the business owners should be punished.
So the activists on the Left are against freedom of thought and speech, and freedom of conscience. And they believe in the use of aggression, coercion and theft to force their ways onto others. (Talk about “haters”! It is actually these social activists of the Left who are the intolerant ones!)
A possible remedy for the victims of this kind of activist aggression and intolerance is this. What the victims of these activists need to do is immediately take the aggressors to court as soon as the harassment begins. Upon hearing that they were being taken to court just for refusing to serve the lesbian couple, Mr. and Mrs. Klein should have counter-sued. In fact, it is my view that the lesbian couple was acting criminally, regardless of whatever “civil rights” laws were in place, and should have been charged with harassment, extortion and trespassing. Such a case should be brought to trial, and if the defense brings up the “civil rights” laws that the victim business owners supposedly were violating, the business owners’ counsel would make the case that such laws themselves are in violation of the rights of the business owners. If there were still any common sense left, the jury would use the concept of jury nullification to nullify such invasive “civil rights” laws (that are actually anti-“civil rights”!). And even if they didn’t do that, the jury could still find the lesbian activist defendants guilty of harassment and extortion, especially given the fact that they very easily could have found a different baker to serve them. Instead they used this Christian couple and that bakery as a political piñata with which to force the activists’ views and their lifestyle onto others.
The fact that the lesbian couple could very easily have found a different baker but instead chose to harass the Christian bakers, is enough information for me to convict the lesbians for extortion given the financial reward of $135,000 they were able to get the court to confiscate from the bakers to hand over to the activists.
I could make the same case, by the way, if the circumstances different, or were the other way around. For instance, an atheist couple owns a bakery and a Christian couple wants a cake for a wedding. The atheist business owners refuse to serve the Christian couple, and the Christian couple decided to harass and extort the atheist business owners with a lawsuit. The same circumstances I mentioned above should apply there, too. Or a lesbian couple who owned a business which refused to serve an opposite-sex couple’s wedding. Whatever. People do not have a “civil right” to force someone else to associate with them, to do business with them, trade with them, and so on.
Apparently, there have been quite a few cases now in the past several years in which same-sex couples are criminally harassing business owners who refuse to serve them. And the only real reason they are using such aggressions against innocent victims is for the sake of social activism, and NOT because they are in desperate need of a service, because in probably all cases they can easily find a different business who will serve them without any problem.