Keep your eyes on the prize, folks. Seek out the Socialist within yourselves and Hate will not stand a chance.

Godwin's Law is an observation, not an act. It is like Newton's Laws. You don't Newton something, you simply observe the behavior of objects follows some pattern or principle. Nor can you Godwin something. In any case, his interview wasn't an internet discussion, so Godwin's Law does not even apply.

@3: Feeling a tad pedantic today?

Because Godwin's Law.... (for both @3 and @4)

OK, let's all unlease our dictionary and lexicon knowledge all at once: 1,2,3 go

Damn - the little circle started before I could make the change to "unleash" but, sigh, pitard and all that.

@6, "pitard"? Really? Has the world gone suddenly mad?

Them gay marriages is a trap. You go there, get all dressed up in yer fancy duds, drinkin' beer, but when ya get up to go to the toilet, the bathroom ain't a bathroom, it's a GAS CHAMBER. I'm tellin' ya, this is true.

Christian fundamentalists suck. They even suck at being fundamentalists. For starters, for this little stupidity of theirs, they rely heavily on Leviticus. (Which is a problem right there. What happened to their New Covenant? Are they going to be Christians, or not?) Nowhere in Leviticus does it say fuck all about cake, or about photography. For that matter, it says fuck all about marriage, and even less about same-sex marriage. It only talks about sex, and then only maybe. There's some disagreement about context, too. Plus, it's called Leviticus, which means it has something to do with the Levite priestly caste and maybe not anyone else, unless you aspire to be a Levite priest or something.

So, let's say, there you are, a Fundie, trying to interpret and put into practice one teensy part of Leviticus, while you merrily ignore the other 500 parts. And you look at an English translation of the Greek translation of the ancient Aramaic, which might say something about sex acts. If you're going to be a stickler for literal interpretation of words (mistranslated or otherwise), where the fuck does it say anything about marriage?

Plus, it says nothing about bystanders. Any "abomination" label belongs to those doing the thing, not to anyone else. But, let's say you're superstitious (which I'm pretty sure is an abomination in itself), and you want to be extra-careful. The solution is dead simple. If you're a Christian Fundie photog, don't take pictures of men having sex with other men, or if you're a cake decorator, don't depict cartoon gay sex on some cake's icing, and you should be golden. Shouldn't you?

There's no religious reason why a Jewish bakery wouldn't make a neo-Nazi cake.

@11: They also assume that there are no Jewish gays.

@fnarf -- I see what you did there. Heh.

what if a racist restaurant owner refused to serve black customers? oh wait, that is called discrimination and its illegal!

here's a hint for anti gay bigots, replace "gay" with "black" in your stupid scenarios and see if it still sounds socially acceptable before your press release

As a cake maker, you can refuse to decorate a cake with a Nazi swastika, but you can't refuse to sell a cake you would make for anyone else to a customer who states that they're a Neo-Nazi. The nob-heads trying to make this analogy fail to understand the difference between the product and the purchaser.

I can only presume that if the Oregon Family Council, or the Westboro Baptist Church approached the Stranger to purchase some advertising, they would be treated with open arms, right?