I know the message needs to be packaged better than I can say it but eventually the following truths have to be told:
1. Not all discrimination is bad. The same people complaining about discrimination against homosexuals wouldn’t batt an eye if a bakery refused to make a neo-Nazi themed cake.
2. People will disagree on what discrimination is good and what is bad. This is really the crux of the problem as the homo-fascists want to be the sole dictators of what kind of discrimination is acceptable
3. The above points are the reason that the 1st amendment guarantees the right to free speech, even if it is discriminatory. From there emanates the right to free association, even if it is discriminatory. The founders felt that it was better to have private discrimination they did not necessarily agree with than to have the government dictate, at the barrel of a gun, what type of discrimination is allowed.
I have come around to the position that it is none of the government's business if people wish to discriminate.
As someone pointed out a long time ago, the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association has an implicit corollary. The freedom to refrain from association.
Good intentions caused people to look to government to end what was regarded as immoral discrimination against blacks back in the 1950s and subsequent years. As with many good intentions, it went too far. We now regard it as "normal" to insist the government enforce a moral position on others without regard to their own rights.
The matter should have been dealt with by social pressure, not government force. It would have taken longer, but it would have eventually happened, and it would have still preserved the right to dissent.
They are not discriminating against gays - they just don’t make a gay wedding cake. They can buy a regular wedding cake and gayefy it themselves.