I don’t think that even if the gun merchant knew of the plans, that the vendor would be “participating in a murder”. If someone told me that, I’d think they were actually at the murder, such as in the getaway car for instance.
There may be other phraseology I’d object to less. Maybe “participating in the murderer’s plans.” So I equally would not object to hear that the cake vendors are “participating in the wedding plans.” “participating in the wedding” makes it seem like they’re forced to be the best man or something (just like the murder imagery above.)
It’s unclear to me if you’re suggesting that the Indiana RFRA had anything to do with the lack of state-wide protections against discrimination based on sexual preference.
In other words, you quote with seeming approval the description of the amendment to the RFRA law as a “fix,” in quotation marks, which carries the implication that it’s not a fix.
Yet the initial uproar against the Indiana RFRA law was its supposed grant of power to merchants to refuse to serve gay customers.
Now you seem to be saying, or at least quoting with approval, a suggestion that Indiana’s RFRA law isn’t the problem at all – it’s Indiana’s refusal to pass a state-wide ban on discrimination based on sexual preference.
Is that an accurate summary of what you’re saying? I’m not sure my inferences are accurate.
You seem to be implying some statements or thoughts to me that I have in no way made. I am reporting something that has appeared on the internet relevant to this thread.
As far as I can see, you have no basis whatsoever for making inferences.
Well, that’s why I asked. I knew my inference was weak, since you were merely reporting someone else’s words, and moreover even that author’s meaning was open to interpretation. So my bad: it’s a foolish man that builds his house upon the sand.