[Pearls Before Swine]

Some may argue that the thought experiment isn’t relevant because homosexuals and stumbling drunks aren’t the same thing – only the former are part of a protected class.

There's a problem with this reasoning--there shouldn't be ANY protected classes. The law should work well for all.

Now, some might say that this would bring back the "back of the bus", and segregated toilets (another thing the LGBTQ crowd tries to borrow from the Civil Rights Movement). But, there is the concept of public accomodation, which is closely allied with the concept of equality before the law. However, personal services are NOT public accomodation, and better understood in terms of freedom of association and (as the author states) involuntary servitude.

Suppose you're a masseuse--do you get to choose whether you have to cater to clients, whatever their sex, especially if they appear kinky to you? I think "right to refuse service" applies here, and for wedding cakes, and for floral arrangements, as they are personal services, not public utilities largely paid for by the public purse.

[Arm_Bears]

The concept of public accommodation is a violation of private property rights and the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[IronJack]

there shouldn't be ANY protected classes

Or enforced association. Either we're a free people or we're not. And if we can't even choose the people we do business with, then we are decidedly NOT free.