Let's go basic: Should restaurants be allowed to refuse service based on skin color?
I'm no anarchist and I'm ok with anti-discrimination laws. (And I'll be called some names by our resident anarchists for that, so be it.) But I draw the line at forcing business owners to promote a message to which they object.
In Jefferson's words: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” -- Thomas Jefferson
I am fine with laws preventing discrimination against democrats, Catholics and atheists, homosexuals, gun owners/carriers, the disabled, etc.
I believe the law crossing into overt infringement of the constitutionally enumerated right of free exercise of religion when it forces a business owner to promote an idea or practice that he finds morally repugnant. In broader terms, it is a violation of all conscience (religious or secular) to force a man to promote or associate with an idea with which he disagrees.
Concrete examples:
No one should be denied service because he is a democrat. But no business should be compelled to provide service to advance the campaign of a democrat candidate or the democrat party. If an individual democrat wants a cake for his private birthday party he should not be denied on the basis of political affiliation. But if he is looking for a cake for a democrat event intended to promote the platform of that party, or to advance the campaign of one its candidates, he should not get to force unwilling business owners to provide services.
Similarly for religion. No Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, atheist, etc should be denied service because of where they do (or don't) attend church. I want a cake for my kid's party, or the office party, or some other random event, I should not expect to be turned away. But if I show up wanting a cake (or catering services) for a Mormon religious event intended to proselyte the LDS faith, to seek converts, or otherwise promote Mormonism, I don't think anyone should be forced to render services for that event contrary to their conscience. Some of my good Evangelical brothers sincerely believe that converting to Mormonism will cost a man his soul. How could I force them to promote or support such an event even if they are making their usual profit in the process?
No gun owner should be denied entrance to or goods/services from a business simply because he is in lawful, peaceful possession of a firearm. But no one should be forced to bake a cake for or take photographs at or rent a private reception hall to a Friends of the NRA event.
In like manner, no one should be denied services simply because he is homosexual. And in all of the bakery and florist cases of which I'm aware, they never were. In fact, the whole reason the homosexual couple asked for services from the establishment was because of the existing relationship of having received good service happily rendered. But weddings are an event that send a message. They are intended to send a message of legitimizing what otherwise would be "illegitimate" including both the sexual union and any children produced by it. What current law effectively says in some places is that while parents, siblings, adult children, and friends & neighbors can decline to attend a wedding they don't approve of, a photographer can be legally compelled to attend, to actively encourage and participate in conduct he abhors by having to stage photos, etc.
These cases are not parallel to denying service based on skin color. I don't know what "black conduct" is or would be. We all know what homosexual sexual conduct is and nobody should have to choose between making an honest living in his chosen field and maintaining his deeply held and sincere religious beliefs regarding the immorality of such conduct.
What two or ten people do in private is private and should not affect access to goods or services in the public space. But weddings are fairly public events, sending a public message that nobody should be forced to promote.
Charles