Iamdjchrys wrote:
I must have missed the part that he was "specifically targeted because...he was a Christian". I don't know what your source is, but it sounds like a Baptist or Nazarene whitewash. He refused to accommodate them because they were a gay couple, anathema to him, period. Living his faith? No, he showed his true colors as a bigot. No true Christian that I have ever known has compromised his faith by declaring judgment, whether visibly or audibly, on another.
BS, your anti-Christian bias is showing. You sound sad that Christians are standing up and saying enough. Gay rights are a recent event and they are the ones who seem to think these new rights trump the Constitutional rights of Christians. We have over two centuries of precedent and gays have a few years. So who is being intolerant? You expected all of us to turn both cheeks and let you run over us. Jesus also told us to sell our cloak and buy a sword. He offered to bake any other type of cake but you wanted him to submit and compromise his faith. Shame on you! The report didn't say he was specifically targeted. But they refused any other accommodation, and then sued. Circumstantial evidence says he was targeted like the clerk who refused to sign the marriage license.
To me, it looks like, at the state level, the fix was in. You may believe what you want and so can I. Don't twist scripture to accommodate your views, it weakens your argument and contradicts what the scriptures do say and say clearly. When man's law contradicts God's law, Christians are told to stand fast, some will punch back and then resume their stance. Live and let live and there would not have been a problem. The gay couple was clearly the aggressors.