Since it won a tournament , why isn ' t it played more often ? Take a look at the winning list . It ran x 4 and a couple fetch maps to find them . Desert can demolish certain threats from Udelver and Stompy , shoring up some of the deck ' s weaker match ups . Desert is not legal on MTGO , so Travis Hobria ' s 1 st place finish doesn ' t inform the online meta . <| sep |> It ' s up to you , and you know that , If you happy let it be that way . but in my prospective . Happy ending stories are not happy if the story was fake . so I choose to seek the truth and I know it ' s not easy . <| sep |> Side note I think it is dangerous to paint this as just a religious case which can lead to the assumption that anyone who disagrees with the decision does so on religious grounds which is not true . For instance I have Christian friends who thinks the Asher ' s are in the wrong , and atheist friends who think the Asher ' s have a point . There are diverse opinions on this matter separate from religious affiliations . I hope it ' s clear that I find the extrareligious implications of letting Ashers refuse to bake the cake to be one of the most troubling parts of this whole thing . As I ' ve said elsewhere , if Ashers are allowed to refuse a service to one person on grounds of their religious beliefs whilst providing an equivalent service to other people , then we have a can of worms of gigantic size and depth . If they ' re allowed to do this , we ' ve a branching set of options 1 Keep the freedom only for religious beliefs the pro is that it keeps the size of the wormcan down a little , and the con is that it ' s insanely unjust why should the religious get the freedom to discriminate , but the nonreligious don ' t ? And in trying to apply this law , how do we determine what constitutes a religious belief that ' s worthy of allowing this kind of discrimination ? Some denominations believe homosexuals , atheistsnonchristians etc . are damned , some believe you shouldn ' t do anything on sunday , some hold gay marriages , some etc . etc . etc . there ' s a dizzying range of belief , so we ' re left with the choice of a allowing any belief any religious person claims pro wormcan is a little smaller , con allows literally any discrimination literally anybody wants for literally any reason or b requiring some kind of testexamination for the belief to be held to be legitimate pro stops purely arbitrary discrimination , con can of worms now includes impossible theological , philosophical , scriptural , historical arguments all denominations of christians , for example , are working off the same book and come to wildly different conclusions , philosophers and theologins differ sharply on what ' s legitimate . 2 Expand the freedom to all beliefs pro is equality we ' re not making religious belief more legally legitimate than other supernaturalspiritual ones or nonsupernatural personal beliefs . Con is that you can now discriminate against anyone for pretty much any reason you want . The same problems as 1 ab apply here too we could try to restrict the ' legitimate ' beliefs to a subset of all beliefs , but then we have to have a way of determining what is and isn ' t a legitimate enough belief to allow discrimination and I defy anyone to be able to explain how we ' d do that with a shred of fairness , or we could get around that problem by allowing any belief to be legitimate grounds for discrimination . I can ' t see how allowing this case to be legal logically gets us anywhere but all business discrimination is legal or insane and fundamentally flawed Khafkaesque truth bureau determining what discrimination is ok both awful options . Certainly immensely , staggeringly worse in every regard than a christian bakery having to bake a cake with a gay marriage slogan on it .