+41

Regarding the case of that cake shop in Colorado I still can not find a clear answer for whether the shop owner wouldn't have had a problem had he made a cake that can be also transferred to regular wedding and used there or whether that cake would be specially customized with things that make that other use unreasonable like having the names of the male couple on it. Because if it is the first then the owner may benefit from how reasonable that other use rule to realize that he could be unnecessarily burdening himself religiously if following religion is his concern. At first, reading that he offered the gay couple a pre made cake it appeared to me that his problem was that he was asked to make special customization for the cake that fit gay wedding only but then I became less sure of that reading the arguing about compelling speech and already made speech.

There are things you do not want to enable in any way like for example selling a knife to somebody whom you know intends to use it to kill somebody. On the other hand there are things where the other side affects itself (still not in a severely harmful way) and in this case the other use rule imply that you can enable that other party to make that bad thing in your eyes as long as that same enabling, seen with reasonable eyes, can also be used for good things and your connection to that enabling terminates with leaving the choice to the buyer (That could be only part of what the rule imply because some could argue even for enabling after the choice like that in the job of for example a mailman delivering items that could only have bad use since the job of the mailman is to deliver anything in general).