The lesbians KNEW that Sweet Cakes was a Christian-run business. They were informed of that and CHOSE ON PURPOSE to continue to try to force the Christian couple to do what their faith forbade them to do under peril of eternal damnation: abet the spread of homosexuality in a culture "as normal" (See Jude 1 of the New Testament). These lesbians were out to sabotage the Kleins' 1st Amendment rights, using inferior local PA laws. It was a direct act of suppressing someone else's constitutional rights. If the Kleins can demonstrate that the lesbians knew the Kleins had constitutionally-protected objections (since "gay" is behavioral and NOT protected as such in the Constitution) ie: their 1st Amendment rights,, AND if the Kleins could demonstrate the lesbians had alternatives (they did and knew they did) a countersuit could show the lesbians were out to suppress constitutional rights of another person or persons. Turn this bitch on its heel and chase the other way? They went to the appeals court this March 2017. Argument for the Kleins: Bakers Accused of Hate Get Emotional Day in Court Argument against the Kleins: But Mr. Burr, don't you know that there is NO LANGUAGE AT ALL in the US Constitution either directly or via insinuation or allusion to sexual behaviors and habits? But there is PLENTY of language in the US Constitution about religious freedoms and protections. And, nobody is allowed to suppress or deny the Constitutional rights of another. And Mr. Burr, do you know that the Judicial branch of government cannot use its power to legislate brand spanking new pivotal language into the US Constitution? Might want brush up on that old political science course you had to take in high school in order to pass. Though I realize that in Oregon, "education" is a loose term... Anyone want to bet on this horse race?