It is more economically rational to deny same-sex couples marriage status than not.

Thank you for replying. Firstly I shall address your first argument, about "keeping a thriving and healthy business climate which does not unfairly favour one business over another". Well, to put it bluntly - Capitalism. Capitalism allows for competition between businesses and means that some businesses go under and some come out on top. Moreover, your argument that it is in some way unfair to certain businesses, when applied in another scenario, seems ridiculous and farcical. Let's make a hypothetical situation: let's say there's a vegan and a vegetarian restaurant, next to each other. Initially they're both getting the same business and number of customers, and importantly they both have the same vegan menus. One day, the vegetarian restaurant adds eggs and milk to its menu, meaning all the dishes on its menu no longer cater to only vegans, but also vegetarians. Obviously, the vegan restaurant refuses to add eggs and milk to its menu, but the vegetarian restaurant starts getting more customers and making far more money, all because the vegan restaurant's owner didn't want to also serve vegetarians. How is that different to what we are arguing about? If the wedding organisers refuse to open up their businesses to same-sex marriages because they aren't willing to broaden their minds, then they miss out on a broader market and they just have to deal with it. That's just the way it goes. Moreover, this therefore shows that it is economically irrational not to serve same-sex couples, as the business will be losing potential business and customers by not embracing the potential of a wider market. To address P1 and P2, how about religious people who won't shop in stores owned by people in same-sex couples? In that case, surely that religion itself is just as economically irrational as same-sex marriage? They'd go and shop from a business which is owned by a straight person, thus giving that business an unfair advantage over the other. And if we therefore assume that religion is just as economically irrational as same-sex marriage, this entire argument can be turned on its head. To address P2a: yes they would, but that's their fault for taking the view which they take. If we were looking at this argument from a purely economic standpoint, we would say that the most economically rational thing for the business proprietor to do is set aside their own beliefs if it means making more income. Therefore I would argue that, since customers do not need businesses, but rather businesses need customers, it is more economically irrational for a business to discriminate against customers than for the businesses themselves to be discriminated against. In response to your second argument, I have 2 rebuttals. Firstly, in France, hijabs, niqabs and burkas are all illegal. Hacidic Jews cannot wear their religious clothes in public, nor can Sikhs wear turbans, so as a European it isn't unthinkable for the state to limit religion. This ties into my second point later on, which addresses liberalism. It is illegal in the USA to discriminate negatively (and in some states positively). Now in P1 your argument that "Liberalism, fostered by the state, maximizes the number of acceptable political, ideological, philosophical and religious viewpoints which can function within an economy, whether consumers or producers" is simply untrue. Liberalism does not aim to foster and maximise the number of acceptable political, ideological, philosophical and religious viewpoints in society. That would be pluralism. Liberalism merely seeks to protect the rights of the individual so long as those rights do not infringe upon the rights of another individual. Same-sex marriage does not infringe on a Christian's rights - they may disagree with it or find it repulsive, but it is not limiting them in their lifestyles. However, denying a same-sex couple marriage IS an offence against liberalism, because it is actively limiting the individuals in the same-sex couple. In P3 you say "allowing the practice of same-sex marriage pits consumers against producers and contravenes political liberalism", but denying same-sex marriage is far more of a limit on political liberalism, as it actively stops same-sex couples marrying each other, whereas allowing it merely offends people who disagree with it, and that is not defended under liberalism. Furthermore there is clearly a clash of rights here: most of these arguments can be turned on their heads and made to go both ways. However, to deny a same-sex couple marriage, when homosexuality is a natural part of life, because religion, which is a doctrine people can choose to subscribe to if they so wish, disallows it is morally wrong. The thought that I could write a book today that tells people they cannot domestic animals, and then in 2000 years people may still follow it to the extent of refusing commercial service to people who own a cat or a dog is a terrifying thought to say the least. I am not against religion, and I would never take it away from anyone, but when it starts limiting the lives of those who do not choose to follow it, then it is fundamentally contravening liberalism and has no place whatsoever to dictate to those outside its faith how to live their lives, or even to teach those within it to limit the lives of those outside of it. After that short but relevant tangent, I will conclude. I would argue that you could just as validly argue that religion or a metaphysical rejection of same-sex marriage is just as much to blame for businesses being targeted unfairly and pitting consumers against producers. But moreover, I'd argue that the far more economically irrational thing to do is to reject service to same-sex couples, because if we take "economically rational" to mean "what is economically reasonable to do", then it is reasonable for business owners, based purely on economic intentions, to maximise their income by maximising their market. To reject service to anyone is the most economically irrational thing a business can do. Businesses cater to customers, customers do not cater to businesses. Anyone who has ever worked for a business, big or small, knows that the customers come first, because the customers are where the money comes from.