More tussling with James McGrath.
And here we have one of the favorite moves out of the Liberal Christian playbook: the ability for the importance of a given issue to shrink and grow depending on what side of the divide you happen to be on.
Are you a Christian baker who would simply rather not supply services for a gay wedding, even if you'd supply them for any gay individual otherwise? Well, then this is a case of 'pastries for Jesus'. You're being so, so petty - just make the pastries and hush up. It's no big deal. It's just a cake!
But, are you a gay couple being denied a pastry for your wedding from a Christian who you specifically tracked down purely to bully them? Then we're talking about a matter of life and death for the gay community, because NOT getting that pastry is a clear prelude to literally being rounded up and exterminated.
Well, it makes sense, right? Because, even if there's an obvious change in magnitude for the same issue depending purely on which side of the divide you're on, it's not as if Christians have ever been persecuted or rounded up for extermination by a government before? Oh, wait....
PS: Check that same thread for James talking about how horrible it is that I'm making the arguments I am behind cover of anonymity, because he'd like to see me be "held accountable" for what I'm saying. Yes, monster that I am, I'm saying that Christians (among others) shouldn't be forced to, in their private business, supply services for an act they're morally opposed to. For that, I'm apparently due some repercussions.
And he wonders why anyone would be anonymous on the internet?