What's the difference between his "correction" and the original? The idea is that the waiter is going to do something to the food to make it unfit for consumption.
He could have talked about the cases in which homosexual bakers refused to bake cakes that had anti-gay marriage inscriptions. He could have said that he opposed use of public accommodations laws to force Christians out of business for acting according to their beliefs. There were some good points to be made here. Did he make them?
“homosexual bakers refused to bake cakes that had anti-gay marriage inscriptions”
Wait - there were some fools actually wasting energy and time planning party cakes with anti-homo salutations?
Agreed on your second para.
Regarding the “difference” between original and corrected statements, use of the corrected one opens the door, by provoking an outraged Lib response, to raising the issue of Liberals who have admitted to spitting in food and similar things. Jesse Jackson, as mentioned earlier, but also that Lib journalist (David Korn?) who admitted to being sick with the flu and licking the doornobs at Gary Bauers campaign HQ (2000 was it?)
It still doesn’t change the higher level problem wit Carsons comment (indicating that Christian Conservatives would stoop to the tactics of Jackson and other Libs), but it at least presents a viable political exit route.