Discrimination in the name of religious freedom

[exploited]

[Bauce]

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

[exploited]

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

[exploited]

Still, I think we can put this "participation" stuff to rest. There is quite clearly no connection between providing a product and participating in it's use. The fact that a wedding cake is part of a ceremony does not in anyway mean that the person who made the cake is participating in said ceremony. A ring is a part of the ceremony, the person who sells the ring is not participating. A dress is part of a ceremony, the person who sells the dress is not participating. There is no logical connection between the two. Instead, this argument is being presented in order to desperately grasp onto Freedom of Association rights. Which is an argument that would be more effective if made honestly, instead of talking about how by selling a person something you are endorsing or participating in how it is used.

[eynon81]

[exploited]

The distinction does not exist. You are holding onto it because you are stubborn as hell, even though I have shown many times that there is no difference between providing a cake and providing a knife to cut the cake. A person cannot say "My knives will be used to feed the gays and cut the gay cake, therefore my religious beliefs prevent me from providing those knives." That argument is completely illogical and invalid.