Unintended consequences as a battle plan

The business community's swift backlash against Arizona's "religious freedom" bill raises the possibility for a new tactic in fighting back against the Republicans' attempt to sneak bad policy bills through disguised as good things.

This tactic arises from the "unintended consequences" -- the "discrimination is bad for business" meme that was so skillfully employed in Arizona.  It was effective not only in stopping the AZ bill -- but, overnight, similar bills in five or six other states, including Georgia's, suddenly got put on hold or dropped altogether.

So here's another tactic, along those lines, suggested by a letter to the editor from Fred Dikeman in Friday's AJC.    The idea is to use the proposed law in a way that has unintended consequences that hurt those pushing the law.
  
Here's the proposal:   As a business owner, claim your right to refuse service to gun owners on the basis of your religious beliefs, and cite the Ten Commandments' mandate: "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

But, you say, you don't intend to kill;  you just keep a gun for protection.   In other words, you're just being a gun owner, not necessarily a gun shooter.   So as long as you don't shoot your gun, I have no right to object to your being a gun owner?

Let's apply that logic to the gay wedding thing.  The photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony did so because the idea of their being gay offended him;   it was not that he was asked to film them having sex.

Why is it not then comparable to say that, it's the very idea of a person being a gun owner that I find offensive to my religious beliefs?   It's not that I have to actually serve him while he is shooting his gun.   No, I can object just on the grounds that he possesses a gun and will shoot it at some other time and place.

I'm looking at the comparable "being" vs "behaving" in the two situations.  "Being a gun owner" and "being gay" are similar in that they are states of being, while "having gay sex" and "shooting your gun" are similar in that they are behaviors.

It's a question of "being" or "behaving."  So if a photographer can refuse to take pictures of a ceremony that is about "being gay," shouldn't I be able to refuse service to someone who is simply "being a gun owner"? 

Ralph