People should be allowed to legally refuse doing work for gay weddings (flowers, cakes, etc.)

1. "If the service being requested is for an event that is dirctly against the businessman's beliefs, they should have the right to refuse." If I buy something from a business, why would I even need to inform them of the event involved? You're limiting the freedoms of the individual by having them necessarily lie whenever they want goods, for no public benefit. Besides, this is not how the gay wedding/florist situation is being used. They are using it to refuse all services at any time for any reason. They are using it purely as discrimination against gays. Let's take blacks during segregation. There were black and white water fountains. [1] There were black entrances and white entrances. There were bars that were specifically non-black. The reason we've done away with these as a society is because they were discriminatory and causing our society to put Americans in second class citizenship for no reason. Many people held strict "religious" views against blacks being allowed to use the same water fountains. It's not always about how important one specific situation is. These situations become symbols for their community. Imagine full towns where people refuse all gays service. One has to hide being gay, or else lose all ability to live in a town. What if one is raised in a gay hating town and becomes gay? Hide it or else? Move? Moving is not always a possibility. It takes money, and you lose all resources you had access to in your hometown. Not only that, the owner of a business would only have to THINK the person is gay, or requesting their services for a "gay" reason and they would then be able to refuse them service. This could be used to deny people access to services based on their race, using the scapegoat of sexual orientation. How do you make a law around discrimination based on race, but not make a law protecting sexual orientation? These are both protected classes in the united states. [2] 2. Vegan drivers being able to refuse to bring meat to clients. If Uber Eats wants to have vegan specific drivers that's fine. They're not infringing upon a protected class for one. It is also entirely possible for Uber Eats to make vegan drivers invisible to all meat-consuming customers. They would not be denying the whole of their service for this. There is a similarity in Muslim airplane attendants refusing to serve alcohol. That's fine as long as they made it clear with their employers before they were hired - as the vegan would need to do. If the cake maker had someone who would bake cakes for gays so that someone who didn't wish to do so would not, that is also fine. You wouldn't be denying them the service. The analogy you've chosen is weak at best. 3. "What is acceptable discrimination?" In our society, people can discriminate as much as they want. These are the rights given to us by our Constitution. The repercussions you face from doing so are not protected against, but there are no legal repercussions for doing so. A business is not a person. There is a clear tie between refusing a particular race service and refusing a particular sexual orientation service, particularly when it can be allowed simply if you THINK they're gay. It's an excessively arbitrary position. Consider several scenarios: 3a. A black man with purple hair walks into a convenience store in the middle of nowhere, trying to buy a few snacks. Clerk at the convenience store denies him service based on his sexual orientation (Doesn't matter if it is true or not!). Turns out, that black man is a diabetic. He needed the snacks to get his blood glucose levels back to normal. He's in a particular bind. Lets say the gay man tells the clerk this. The clerk is not required to believe him. He can refuse service. You then have a driver on the road suffering from any number of terrible symptoms. [3] He gets in a wreck afterwards. The results are unimportant. Your position causes this. Do you think this scenario is particularly rare? Hundreds, or thousands like it? Let's look at the reverse. A black man with purple hair walks into a convenience store in the middle of nowhere, trying to buy a few snacks. Clerk grits his teeth for a few seconds as the gay man makes his purchase. Turns out, he's a bit richer (or his company is) and he washes his hands afterwards. Maybe the gay man makes a funny joke and his opinion of gays changes just a sliver. Which of these scenarios are more acceptable to you? You have to weigh the "religious freedom" of people (which can be defined as literally anything. I can make up a new religious tenant on the drop of a hat to justify my discrimination) versus the freedom for others to plan trips or expect businesses to have their services available. Let's say gas stations don't give gays gas. Let's say the only supermarket for miles denies service. You can see, with a bit of forethought, how these scenarios will give rise to immense pain and suffering, while the reverse facilitates an eventual understanding, and only requires a small amount of grit of teeth. Additionally, businesses can always refer people to other services that cater to them, or directly establish ties with someone who does and outsource the jobs to them. A private contractor can be used for all gay related business for things such as photography or floral needs. The consumer doesn't even need to be aware of it. 4. Another point, weak or strong as it may be, is that religious people are not enforcing these punishments on any other areas of their beliefs. So Christians deny gays their service. Do they also do criminal background checks and deny those who have used drugs? Do they deny those who have committed adultery? (our president) For divorcing? For murder? For rape? Are they allowed to discriminate because the person worships an "idol" to them? Discrimination based on religion? If they do not, they have arbitrarily picked one of their beliefs, and one not even supported by their full religious texts anywhere near as much as the others, to discriminate against gays. [4] In effect, they are using their religion as an excuse for their hate, largely stemming from societal pressures, prejudice, their own discomfort and insecure sexuality. We are in effect barely nicking the "religious freedom" (not really) of some, and guaranteeing that some can have access to services they may require to live or to not suffer. The weights on this scale are not even. To wrap up: I completely agree that insofar as we can we should allow people their religious freedoms, even if they simply use that as an excuse. People need to realize that businesses are not people and do not gain full access to those rights simply because there are people working inside the business. Facilitating hate is not in the Constitution. Protecting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is. There's nothing stopping businesses from attempting to deter people from coming in and using their services. You can make your store "Christian Bakery" and most gays will probably steer clear. You can deter, but you cannot refuse service to those who need it. Allowing the gay baker to refuse service, legally, would be allowing the clerk to refuse service. Thus threatening the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for a large number of people, while doing minimal harm to another. No one stops the photographer from getting someone else to do the job under their company's name. No one stops the baker from bringing in someone else to bake the cake. No one stops the florist from calling in another florist. No one stops them from referring the people to other businesses. Do we really want "anti-gay" towns to pop up across America, land of the free? --- [1] http://blog.ericharmatz.com... [2] - https://www.legalmatch.com... [3] - https://www.endocrineweb.com... [4] - Can't use link because profanity. (lol!)