That might BE part of it, and so what. A disgruntled freeper or two notwithstanding, we don’t stand for that. Even if we thought that police ought to send them all to jail, we wouldn’t stand for a massacre.
We "don't stand for" What? Nobody was even remotely suggesting this wasn't a heinous, deplorable crime. But, the Times is trying to make it an anti-gay issue and paint it on conservatives and Christians. I just pointed out there is nothing now to suggest this was an motivated by anti-gay animus as opposed to your typical muslim terrorist incident where they pick the target which promises to provide the largest body count. All done in the name of islam.
OK, I think I now know the point you were making. You comments were directed to the author of the article, not the point of my post? That would make sense.