I can't see how specifically excluding items is "wishing to be left out... of the debate."
If they wanted to be left out of the debate, they wouldn't have inserted themselves into it.
They also chose to include a product in with clearly morality based choices, sex companies, religious organizations and guns.
Taken with the refusal to agree, even in theory, that they would accept co-branding if the gun company completely covered ALL costs and I can't see how it could not be seen as Anti. Their (supposedly) only objection is nullified and they still can't answer the question?
Add in the nonsense in the original email, that frankly looked like it could have been written by the Brady Campaign.
I see no where else to go with it.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.