I think that's where we disagree.

Given, Dan can't change the fact he's gay.

Given, Mike Pence has formally expressed that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and signed into law legislation allowing businesses in Indiana to kick out gay customers when he was governor of Indiana.

Given, Mike Pence's party controls the Congress, Executive, and Legislative branches of government.

It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote for Pence and who don't want to be seen as racist, because it sure looks racist.

So if the other candidate was Hitler (and happened to support homosexuals in the military)...Bob is a bigot unless he supports Hitler.

Taking the extreme positions in a logical argument help to reveal the inconsistencies.

Its all about what each party prioritises.

The liberals prioritised certain things above all else. Its a very principaled yet emotional approach.

> It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote

If an establishment candidate like Hillary is seen as harmful to Bob, is there a burden on Dan to explain why the risk of voting for her is Ok?

Maybe, can you put your example in context?

Bob doesn't want to be drafted into a war with Russia, say.

I'm pretty sure if you said to someone that you were worried a vote for Clinton is a vote for war with Russia then that person would understand what you meant. A person might disagree with you, but a person is not going to worry you feel the way you do because of their skin color or religion.

Does that distinction make sense?