I get that. I get why people disagree on this. What I don't get is why they these arguments keep devolving into minutiae and technicalities such as the hypothetical in this thread when, at the end of the day, it's a simple either/or question. Either you believe religion gives you a right to discriminate, or you don't. There's nothing to say or consider beyond that.
This is an internet forum dedicated to arguing minutiae Tony. What else would you expect
More seriously, we live in a pluralistic society where no 'side' of most issues is likely to achieve 'total' victory, so we'll have to reach some sort of muddled compromise. In that sense these issues are relevant insofar as they help us suss said compromise out.
My old debate coach used to always say that if we couldn't reasonably argue our opponent's point, we didn't really understand the issue. The gay wedding cake issue is a prime example of this.
The 'muh religious freedom' side often doesn't see where some are abusing religious freedom in the name of bigotry, or how we sometimes single out homosexuals out in a way that we don't other sexual or family issues like divorce. Likewise the 'muh equal rights' side does themselves a grave disservice when they immediately dismiss conscience concerns as bigotry and ignore how such attitudes would work when applied to other issues (e.g. the draft).
