You most certainly said did say we should accept it and go for an alternative.
Yes to the latter, no to the former, so you're half right.
No I've not twisted anything.
You have. You've restated everything to rephrase things as things I have explicitly not said.
I'm pointing out that what you are advocating results in the widespread discrimination of people.
Yes, yes it does. That's extremely unfortunate. I wish it weren't the case.
You seem very unaware of the consequences of what you are arguing for.
I'm quite aware of the consequences. I'm not sure you're aware of the consequences of what you're fighting for.
Which is exactly what I have been saying. I just will not do it in the lying down and being hit way you suggested.
Calling another caterer isn't "lying down and being hit" - it's "spoiling for a fight you don't have to have" but then again you seem to love causing fights.
It was a reference to when you implied
Reference to where you decided that's what I was saying. I never implied or said such a thing, not once, ever.
This entire thing is about denying people service. It has been denied so no we don't have access to the exact same services.
You have access to the exact same services. You can go in and buy a cake. Nobody cares.
Which is wrong and should not be accepted as there is no difference in the product ordered.
Yes there is.
This is an idiotic point. People who are straight are not denied things because they are straight.
You've clearly never hung around politically correct people.
No it's not. Explain how it is a false dichotomy to have two choices.
"Either I force people to do what I want, or I'm a second class citizen to you and you love that I'm being oppressed, don't you!" Uh, no, not in the slightest.
On one hand equal access to goods and services and on the other hand you saying it is ok to deny me access to goods and services.
For the 10,000,000th time, you can buy the same services.
If I am denied I have less choice and therefore do not have equal access. This is an either or situation. Whatever you think a false dichotomy is, this situation is not it.
You only have access to one caterer. If that person can't be impressed legally to go against their religion, we can NEVER GET MARRIED EVER.
YES YOU HAVE! You stated it was within someone's rights to refuse me service for my sexuality.
Nope, I never said that. I said they had the right to limit the services they provide, as to your "do what I want, or do nothing" scenario.
That is discrimination. Whether you personally would do it is immaterial.
My tattoo artist won't tattoo white power or other racist emblems. That's not discrimination, that's him refusing to do certain kinds of work. You want him forced to do that because some skinhead invokes his First Amendment rights?
You have advocated the position as being acceptable
You should be thankful that people cannot legally force you to act against your own faith or conscience.
and therefore the consequence of me being discriminated against as acceptable.
Not at all. In fact, my solution was: find another caterer, I'll happily drive you across town to facilitate that, so you aren't discriminated against, and the person of conscience doesn't feel forced to shut his business down, or do something against his beliefs. This is a win-win situation that you somehow are too unreasonable to consider.
I also see no difference between homophobia and racism and treat both with the contempt they deserve. I also fail to see why you criticise it as an emotive topic.
I said appealing to emotion because you have no logical case here is a punk move. So once again you twist it around as somehow there's something wrong with emotive response to racism, your typical tactic.
You have advocated the right for people to discriminate against me and expect me not to have a problem with that?
Please be silent, until you find anywhere where I have said it was acceptable to discriminate against you. I'll be awaiting til the end of time.