Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat
Instead of trying to break out each individual part, I'm going to try in this reply to focus on what I see as the central nuggets of your argument. If I skip over something that you would rather I have addressed, please let me know and I'll circle back around to it.
if you feed someone at any event who is engaging in sinful activity at the event, regardless of whether the event is centered on such sinful activity, you are also facilitating it as well because the energy that the person is using to engage in the activity is coming from food that you have supplied.
No. There is a distinct difference between serving sinners (which we all do) and serving sin. It's not the food (I would equally not wish to serve as a wedding photographer, or as a wedding planner), it's the event (the activity, as we called it at the beginning, though for precision of language we have chosen to more narrowly define it). It's the meaning, the purpose.
As an example: You are a young, clever fellow; let us say that you develop websites for a living. Rob comes to you. Rob seems a decent sort, and he wants a website that he can use to sell merchandise centered around an online joke website involving funny pictures of cats that we shall call funnycat.com. You develop the site, you get paid, Rob is happy.
A few months later, Rob comes back to you. Man, that site worked out really well, and he wants you to build another. Fantastic - repeat customers and more business. What is the site for? Well, you see, the problem is that whites in our area suffer from lack of race consciousness - they let inferior races walk all over them, pollute their schools, waste their public funds, take their jobs, etc. So we are hoping to set up a similar idea - merchandise sold around an online site dedicated to the local chapter of the KKK, of which I am the Grand Kreasurer (no idea if that is a rank, I was going for "treasurer", but with the klans' stupid little K-name-convention thingy). The focus of the site is that we want to appeal to young males the most - hopefully, if we can capture them when they are still impressionable, we can save them from the bad influences of their jew teachers and their n*****-loving parents. So, you'll have us up and running in no time, right?
...Rob was a hater the entire time you were working for him. He hated non-whites when you first met, he hated non-whites when you were helping him with funnycat.com, he hated non-whites when he came back to you.
But there sure does seem to be a bit of a difference between him asking you for help on the first site, and him asking you for help on the second...
The difference is one of meaning. For the first site, Rob's hate is irrelevant to the purpose of the site. For the second, it is central.
So what you termed was an assumption was actually a conclusion drawn from the observation that you want to avoid one instance based on the notion of not being implicated in sinful activity, but are perfectly fine with another instance in which you would be implicated in sinful activity.
Thus, this is incorrect - and is why I have already told you that I would equally not cater a Swingers' party, an AshleyMadison.Com event, or a convention on How To Lie To Your Spouse Without Getting Caught. At the point at which the event becomes about the activity/sin in question, I can no longer participate in the event in good conscience, because at that point, I am (to use your verbiage) implicated.
As such, one could conclude that the underlying motive is actually an aversion to an activity, which you actually have, although you may not want to admit it. I am not saying that to be derogatory, but that is simply the way it is.
I understand that you find that easiest to understand, but in fact you are seeking to create a universal rule from something that you find plausible.
You are also (here, specifically) incorrect. My little sister is a lesbian. Not attending her wedding would not only be an extremely painful experience, but could deeply damage - if not cause me to lose - a relationship that I cherish deeply for life.
I would agree there are plenty of folks on my side whose reactions are, to varying degrees, being fed by a poorly-thought out aversion. When you see Christians try to say that "well, for them" there is a difference between (say) adultery and homosexuality, you'll probably find it there.
But there are plenty of folks on your side whose reactions are, to varying degrees, being fed by aversion to Christianity, and certainly at least to Christianity when it is practiced by Conservatives. That doesn't mean that you are taking your position
because of an aversion to Christianity any more than it means that I am taking my position
because of an aversion to homosexuals.