[Dr. Sivana]

Wait a minute. How can anyone force this guy to do anything? It’s his business. He’s the one that chooses.

Laws providing for such things were enacted because some businesses didn't want colored people sitting at their lunch counters.

A judge will have to decide the extent of the principles involved.

[davidbellow]

color of skin is something that you are born with..... having a gay wedding is a decision... there is big difference between denying someone black a seat to eat and denying to participate in a gay wedding that is a DECISION that violates your religion and that over 30 states have banned via state laws and constitutional amendments

[rollo tomasi]

Civil Rights laws are an affront to freedom of association as well as freedom itself. Tyranny of the minority is equal to the madness of tyranny of the majority.

The individual should be free to, not coerced, into doing the right “thing”.

[drbuzzard]

And I’ll state the unpopular opinion that such laws were a bad idea even then.

Freedom of association either means something or it doesn’t. The Civil Rights Act was not a constitutional amendment and as such should not override the protections granted by the first amendment. I should be able to associate (which includes doing business) with anyone that I want to. I should also be able to not associate as well.

Civil right laws that prohibit discrimination by the government are good. Those that trample freedom of association by private individuals are just plain bad.