[drjimmy]

The more exact equivalent is requiring all Jewish restaurants to serve pork so as not to offend anyone who walks in wanting it. Or requiring a devout Jew to cater a pork BBQ when he only serves BBQ Chicken.

That simply isn't true. Discrimination laws everywhere aren't about what you serve, they are about who you serve (and refuse to serve). The people who did the sit-in at the Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, weren't sitting in because they couldn't order the kind of food black people like, it was because they weren't allowed to order at all, on account of not being white.

[Mr Rogers]

The “Gays Must Be Supported” laws are requiring folks to affirmatively support things against their religion by participating in and giving aid to things their religion says they cannot.

These laws require bakers to make cakes celebrating gay marriage, for example. The bakers involved have sold cakes and pastries to gays for years, but they have drawn the line at supporting immoral acts.

Had blacks in the 50s insisted diners support orgies, THEN it would be equivalent.

The gays ARE being served. They can buy cakes. They can buy cookies. They can buy anything they want. But the baker will not support their marriage ceremony with a cake celebrating homosexuality.

There is no equivalence at all to ‘blacks eating lunch’.

Also, blacks are physically black. Being black is not an action. Sticking your penis up a guy’s rump is an action.