Words mean things. “Participate” is a word. It means things.
The law gets to decide that, just as they decided gun makers are not legally responsible for what is done with a gun after it leaves their ownership.
Is that not what I said, that “everyone pays”? Even if there is no defect in their product? The cost of settling is less than the cost of defending?
This is an example of why I don’t consider your participation here sincere, nor worthy of my efforts to accommodate your question.
Someone filing a lawsuit does not contradict the point to which your article was a response. Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything.
Why are you even making me explain this?
Symbols mean things. Ask someone to participate in something with a symbol or that is symbolic that they are religiously opposed to. That means something, too.
Still doesn’t mean the grill maker participated in the occasion during which the explosion happened.
You don’t have to have said it for that to be THE EFFECT of what you want to happen in this case.
The law cannot infringe on a citizen’s free exercise of religion. You are arguing for the government to force him to do something he considers immoral.
You know that.
What symbol do the colors blue and pink represent?
True. But if someone asks for a custom made gun and tells the manufacturer he wants to use it to shoot up a school… by the logic of many in this thread… the gunmaker should be sued for being morally opposed and refusing to custom make the product.
I am all for the federal courts to review this issue and put it to bed.
Do I decorate a wedding cake? No. As far as I can see, the design of the cake is protective by freedom of speech. But you still have to bake the cake.
No right is unrestricted. Even the 1st amendment.
The CRA forced business owners to do something some of them considered immoral. So, since you believe that what is happening to the baker is reprehensible, logically, what Rosa Parks did was reprehensible. How dare we force white restaurant owners to serve blacks against their deeply held beliefs!
And has to pay to defend himself against it.
There is a whole legal industry out there dedicated to such lawsuits.
Because that would equal a threat/plot against the lives of others. Sorry, your example fails. Trying to compare a trans person to eating a blue/pink cake to celebrate their identity to a killer who wants a gun makers to soup up their gun with cool options so they can shoot up a school better…is a really asinine comparison.
As I already stated.
The design? Absolutely. With the current case, the baker had no problem with the design the customer was requesting. It was the purpose that the cake was in celebration of that the baker found repugnant.
This too.
“The effect” is just your own strawman.
How many posts – just today – have I pointed out wherein you tried to make an absolute statement out of my words.
I will not let such dishonesty go unchallenged.
No, as I said. The grill maker still gets sued and everyone pays. Are you going to argue with yourself now?
Welcome to the world of the Baker 
