The root of the problem is the common presumption that individuals should be barred from making ANY private choices that might offend somebody. That all discrimination is like discrimination against blacks. Conservatives will get nowhere until they screw-up the courage to challenge this presumption. I think we should fight for the right to private choices as long as there is no violence and health and safety is not at issue, i.e., the ambulance picks-up everyone. Maybe choice should be limited for matters like race and religion, but the limits should be few and clear.
RE: That all discrimination is like discrimination against blacks.
You hit the nail right on the head.
The argument has always been this “A Baker refusing to bake a cake for gay weddings is discrimination akin to refusing bake a cake for black people.”
The argument to make this comparison takes the following form:
Major Premise: A sexual orientation is analogous to the category of race.
Minor Premise: Race is a category protected by anti-discrimination laws.
Conclusion: Therefore, sexual orientation should have the same civil-rights protections as those afforded to race.
The question we will examine is whether the major premise is true. Is sexual orientation analogous to race?
I have come around to the view that the government should not be in the business of making people cater to people with whom they do not wish to do business.
We are all familiar with the issue of discrimination against blacks. We've heard about the lunch counters and so on, but is not forcing people to provide services against their will also wrong?
Is this not government imposed morality? What is wrong with letting social pressure solve these problems? Why must the government be used to decide that people don't have rights to refuse service to people they don't like?
I think "freedom to associate" implies a converse freedom. A freedom to refrain from association. It might be immoral, but why is it the government's business to enforce morality on people?