Just posted this comment to this obtuse column by George WIll:
So I wonder: when a heterosexual couple approaches Mr. Phillips about baking a cake for their upcoming wedding, does he interrogate them about the particulars of their relationship, so as to be assured their marriage will be one that is compatible with his Christian views? I'd bet he probably does not, but that he instead assumes those particulars are none of his business. But I'd also bet that at some point in his baking career, Mr. Phillips has baked a cake or two for a couple about whom if he knew the particulars of their relationship, he would probably heartily disapprove. But he never felt moved to take any of those cases to the Supreme Court. items to wear for the grade of 5th graduation purpose
The only difference here is that the aspect of the marriage that he disapproves of is an aspect that is readily apparent (i.e., that the two parties are of the same sex). So why does the mere fact of this visibility suddenly make the nature of their relationship his business?
Still further, I'd bet that Mr. Phillips has, on hundreds or thousands of occasions, provided cakes for events the nature of which he had no idea of what they even were, let alone if they comported with his Christian morality.
"More magnanimity" is called for, so says Mr. Will. Bigotry, whether it be in the form of racism, homophobia, misogyny, or bias against particular religious traditions, is still bigotry, and is hardly deserving of "magnanimity." And in this instance, it deserves to be called out for what it is: rationalizing bigotry under the guise of religion.