Open Letter to Judge Alan McCullough
Believe me, Judge McCullough, I wanted to deliver this message to you in private.
I searched for you on Facebook. No luck. Then I tried LinkedIn where I think I may have actually spotted you.
Was that you in the blue suit at the shiny conference table with the smug grin? I couldn’t be certain.
Generally speaking, I’m not a great big fan of lawyers, but I didn’t want to message the wrong, Alan McCullough, and risk needlessly traumatizing someone. Knowing how much you hate it when people are traumatized, I’m sure you can appreciate that I’m in a tough spot and that I’m forced to go public.
Since you’ve chosen to shed your honor, I’m just going to have to communicate to you minus the pretense.
On the Aaron and Melissa Klein situation, you should know that pretty much everyone sees this the same way: you subscribe to a moral viewpoint and you are quite willing to abuse your power and thereby punish (even ruin) those who dare to disagree with you.
Now Judge, really, $135K? And for what?
Rachel and Laurel — bless their hearts — still got their precious cake with no trouble and I’m guessing they got it for free from some baker who is as morally misguided as you.
Oh, yes, we’ve all heard about the “mental rape” they endured and those lists of emotional and physiological symptoms they each suffered.
I just want to know: Did you have to recess to your chambers so you could laugh in private after the 88 and 90 often-contradictory effects were read? “Loss of appetite,” and “weight gain”? See the problem? “Insomnia,” and “excessive sleep.” Can’t have it both ways.
Other alleged complaints were no less absurd.
“Forced to sell possessions”? Judge, did you think to ask why someone would have to sell her possessions because another party refused to accommodate her request for a cake?
“Fear of not being able to get another job”? Were they fired from something? Does this look like a cut and paste job yet? “Surprised”? “Stunned”?
You can get money for being stunned?
“Elevated blood pressure”? Did you confirm this with the complainant’s physician? “Not wanting husband to touch her?”
Umm…Judge…they are lesbians.
If you were paying attention, you might have noticed that most of the claims were subjective and unverifiable. And yet, you required no expert testimony.
Over 70 of the claims appeared in both lists with precisely identical wording.
For example, both of them reported “feeling trapped” (presumably in a world without cakes). Both reported being “pale and sick at home after work.” Both experienced “horror.” Both “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful.”
(Incidentally, is this a match made in heaven or what?)
At some point, did you not suspect collusion?
It is remarkable the pair didn’t even bother to delete the redundant and contradictory claims so that their blatant cut-and-paste lists wouldn’t appear so…well, blatantly cut-and-paste.
Why such carelessness on their part?
I suppose because 90 is better than 56 and because they had a lot of confidence in you, Judge, being as corrupt as themselves. You didn’t disappoint.
Let’s talk figures.
Why $135,000 and not $241,934? Why not $54,227 and change?
The answer is that it easily could have been any of those figures because you plucked $135K out of thin air. If you had any dignity, that would embarrass you.
Are you too busy dreaming up ways to exploit your public position and oppress Christians to notice how ridiculous and arbitrary your actions appear to the world of sane people?
You are supposed to be a public servant, acting impartially in the interest of justice.
Instead, bringing disgrace to yourself and your station, you’ve ruled as a tyrannical goon. It’s probably a waste of time to ask if it was worth it.
Should the Kleins take my advice, your darling lesbian couple will never see one red cent of this fictitious judgment, assuming it stands. In such a case, you will have soiled your robes for nothing.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.