Oregon Law and State sponsored attacks on religious liberties are the issues of review, here.

From the pro-gay Huffington Post, here,  we have this story and our review:  

"Anti-gay baker Melissa Klein cried at the Values Voter Summit last week over the closing of her business after she and her husband, Aaron, faced severe backlash from their refusal to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding.

In January 2013, Sweet Cakes By Melissa, located in Gresham, Ore., refused service to a lesbian couple looking for a wedding cake. The subsequent fallout included national media attention and a state investigation for anti-gay discrimination, which may be supported by the Kleins' agreeing to bake cakes for an "ex-gay" group.

The couple is now reportedly fighting a $150,000 lawsuit from the state, a reality that made Klein break into tears while discussing her passion for the process of baking wedding cakes during the Values Voter Summit . . . . .  

Clarification: An earlier version of this story reported that Sweet Cakes was "forced" to shut down in the wake of the backlash it received for not serving LGBT clients. However, the bakers chose to shutter their business rather than offer cakes to gay clients . . . . . .  "    You may want to finish this story by clicking on the above hyper-link.  

Editor's notes:  In the HuffPo "clarification,"  the assertion that this couple was not "forced" to make make the decisions they have made,  is not simply "wrong,"  but as stupid wrong as a bigoted claim can be.  While this editor might have responded differently,  the fact remains that when the State forces compliance to social norms,  in a punitive fashion,  freedom has not been served.  In this case,  bigotry has only been moved from the Right side of the aisle (if it exised,  in this case) to Left,  as the State works to eliminate any and all conversation/opposition.  

Understand that the lesbian couple pursuing this judgment,  were not simply concerned with their own choices,  they were determined to destroy any and all who disagreed with them,  using the State as their bully of choice.   Melissa and Aaron Klein could have been any Christian couple willing to take a stand.  You may want to listen to following video explanation.  

What is not included in the Post article, is the following explanation (by the Kleins) at TPM, here: 

"I mean quite frankly, they didn't just harass us, they harassed the other wedding vendors that we did business with. It cut off our referral system," Aaron Klein, Melissa's husband, said. "We had to shut the shop down. Melissa does very limited cakes out of our house. I mean we're facing in excess of $150,000 of damages for this, just for simply standing by my first amendment rights."

Again,  it is clear that the State and the militant gay couple were out to destroy. 

 The fact that the Lesbian couple had other legal and social/private sector options is proof of their militancy for the sake of "militancy" alone. 

To argue that this Lesbian couple stood on the same legal grounds as Blacks,  back in the days when the Democrats forced segregation in the South,  is absurd.

Understand that the Klein's position in no way limited the freedom of the gay couple to marry or have a wedding cake.  Nor did their position effect or compromise State law.  This gay couple got "married" and had their cake,  as well ,  and they had dozens, if not hundreds,  of commercial/private sector choices for their cake. 

Secondly,  we have the following words in the First Amendment,  itself [While the religious Right has certain legal issues in this matter,  so too,  does the Anti-Religious Left, beginning with the amendment,  itself] :  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Many on the Left, try to draw a parallel to the struggle of Blacks in the Democrat South,  years ago.  Did Blacks have the right to attend a state school of their choice? Of course.  And,  if the bakeries of America were all State run refineries,  that parallel would be important.  But none of this is true.  Did Blacks have the right to freely attend a State or private school, without fear of harm or death?  Again,  the answer is profoundly obvious.  More to the particular question at hand, is this question:  Did/Do Blacks have the right to marry another Black person,  or white person,  or gay person?  Indeed they have this right.  And if private sector constituents disagree,  what then?  And in that question,  the issue becomes problematic  . . . .  for both sides of the debate.   

Suffice it to say,  that the Klein's decision not to serve,  in no way limited the freedom of the Militants pursuing this case.  To pursue a "what if" argument,  is beside the point.  There is no "what if,"  in this instance.  The gay couple had plenty of private sector choices.  That is a fact.  And,  the First Amendment still says, 

 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . "  

Understand this fact,  as well: Blacks did not have the right to protest the bigotry of Southern Democrat rule.  The Klein's position did not go to this circumstance,  nor would the Klein's support violence in the promotion of their decision.  More than this,  the Klein's position had nothing to do with State Law forcing the gay couple out of the public square.   It was a decision limited to them and the rule of [their] conscience.  

_______________

After notes: 

An excellent legal discussion can be found at this University of Cornell site.  The key statement in this Cornell opinion,  may be this:  "The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups." 

I don't pretend that this matter has a simple solution.  It does not.  But that fact is an issue for the Left as well as the Right  . . . .  and the debate continues.  But it should continue without a public hanging of the Kleins.