+42

In my religion I used to hear from early time about things being permissible if they have good use. However, I used to think about that more in the way of being about seeking the good results and did not see it as a way for assigning responsibilities based on choices until I read that example I mentioned before. It is about how I am religiously permitted to sell grape to someone who comes to me to buy an  amount of grape I have even if I know he plans to use it to make wine despite how severely wine is prohibited, because grape has other reasonable use that is good. 

Now I look at it also from the rational side and see that you can bring everything in the world to a complete halt if everybody acts as if his responsibility for his believes always extends to beyond leaving the choice to others.

There is another issue the case of the cake shop in Colorado could help me illustrates. Of course, the court may be more focused on the question of rights. But here I want to deal with issues of psychology and existence and doing the good thing, which although maybe clear elsewhere seems to be more clouded here because of that identity establishing issue. This case gives an example showing lines separating the issue of existence of the self from the issue of excluding others. Although I feel bad for the owner if he was required to customize a cake to fit only gay wedding celebration and thereby violates his believe by participating in the making of that choice, that feeling switches to the other side when I assume that it was denied even cakes that can also be used for regular weddings ("neutral" cakes). That is because my concern was to allow  the existence of the owner as extended through his belief. It wasn't to define that existence in the world through its separation from others (Notice that I am giving myself as an example here with my dependence on my view for relinquishing responsibility with leaving the choice to others).