A lot here that's good, but clumsy at the end. Pacing needs work. No score.

The LGBT movement has gone beyond civil rights to a desire to force acceptance upon people whose deeply held religious beliefs prohibit them from participating in same sex weddings. That is a personal as well as a business decision that any free American has the right to make. As I understand it, that is what the Indiana law clarifies. My advice is, find a gay baker or wedding photographer to produce your cake or take the pictures of your event. You'll get better service. You'll help their business. And you will be supporting the rights of other Americans to choose their lifestyle.

So, let me get this straight Patty-boy... it's ok for LGBT people to serve in the military, work respectable jobs in society, pay their taxes, vote and buy all their goods and services from larger retailers and professionals, but not at any small intolerant mom and pop opertion under religious freedom? How is enforcing one group's religious freedom fair when it denies another group's basic freedoms? Sexual orientation should have no bearing on buying products or being served. There are many gay and lesbian businesses that serve straight people. Discrimination in any form is not only immoral, but should be illegal. Btw, the gun people you love certainly like to sell to anyone, even children if they could! Wake up old man!

If any retailer did not wish to serve me, I would find someone else. A person who refused to serve people because they were gay, or Black, or any other reason of their choosing would lose business. But that is their choice to make. The biggest threat we face in this country is oversized, overbearing government. I can't imagine a large chain store would refuse anyone on the basis of sexual preference. That would alienate people and hurt business. Their own rational self interest would prevent them from discrimination. That is more fair and less confrontational than say, having armed police goons (and, in the final analysis, that is what government is, and is based on) force a baker to provide cookies at gunpoint to a client whose life style he disapproves of. That makes GLBT people look no better than the Westboro fanatics. As long as a person with prejudiced views against race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc does not initiate force against anyone, his opinions are his own, and he has the right to hold them. It's called "freedom". Refusing to sell someone a product is not force. And the free market will allow anyone to find that product available from a non-discriminatory source. Most of the time, unless someone is a zealot or exhibitionist, I have no idea what his or her sexual orientation is, and I care even less. That should be, but no longer seems to be, a private matter. By the way, until 1968, at the federal level, there was no age restriction on the purchase of guns. You didn't hear about mass school shootings by disturbed kids then. Something else has changed in the culture.

Madame: we appreciate your reasoned critique as opposed to the mindless 1s.