Faith writes:
So, if that's what it's all about then let's keep this discussion specific to that sort of thing:
Yes, you have the context correct.
you are all still in favor of forcing people to make wedding cakes and take photographs for a gay wedding, and deny them the freedom of conscience to refuse that kind of service?
Yes, mostly.
That is... I'm in favor of forcing them to make wedding cakes for gay weddings and deny them "the freedom of conscience to refuse that kind of service" if they want to
have a business that provides services for the public.
That is... I'm not going to go to your house and force
you to make cakes for the gays just 'cause I think you should.
But... if you want to have a cake-making business that provides services
to the public... then, yes, I want to force you to make cakes for the gays.
Because "the gays" are part of "the public."
That's the issue here.
Refusing to make cakes for gay people is not "denying the freedom of conscience to refuse service" for
the cake maker. That's silly.
Refusing to make cakes for gay people is "denying that gay people are part of 'the public'"
Refusing to make cakes for gay people is "denying that gay people are part of
society"
Refusing to make cakes for gay people is "denying that gay people are
people"
And that's just mean.
(He submitted as the understatement of the year)
™ Version 4.2
