Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[Soggy in NOLA]

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

Only be Nazis like you. Private property is private property.

Nope. Just ask Ravi and her libtard "you didn't build that" friends.

A private business is not a private business because it serves the public.

Yea, I know. My head is spinning, too.

No, it is still a private business. A private business that is a public accommodation business has to serve the general public.

Uhm.. what?

 

[Flash]

The Left would destroy a Constitutional right of freedom of religion to cater to one of their despicable special interest groups.

Kinds of reminds you of the days of LBJ where he proudly proclaimed that he "would have those Niggras voting Democrat for the next 100 years".

 

[Foxfyre]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

In a nutshell:

IMO the law should require, as a condition of the business license, all businesses to sell whatever product a business has in stock and normally sells to all customers without prejudice. A businessman should certainly be able to specify reasonable requirements of conduct and dress in order to receive service and he should be able to apply those to everybody.

The law should not require the businessman to provide a product that the businessman normally would not carry to anybody, nor to go to any location the businessman chooses not to go, nor participate or be present at any activity the businessman chooses to avoid for any reason.

Businesses shouldn't be required to have a license, period. Why should anyone have to ask permission from the government to earn a living?

Such should be left up to each state or municipality--never the federal government--but I support business owners needing a license to conduct business within a state or municipality because some standards are appropriate to require in the interest of the general welfare.

You want a plumber to be licensed because it could be dangerous to the customer and even his neighbors if the plumber is not qualified to do plumbing. Any establishment offering food products or other sustances that could be harmful to people without the people having any way to know of the danger should be regulated.

However if a state or municipality does not wish to exercise such protections for the public, that should be their right to decide too.

I draw the line at any place of business being ordered what products they MUST carry or what services they MUST provide.

State licenses aren't required to produce the results you desire. Private certifications are just as effective.

Are they? And who assures us that those who provide the certification are competent to provide it?

For me, it's a trade off. Within the concept of social contract, a business license to do business is in the best interst of all as it does give us a reasonable expectation that the business owner will provide safe products and services as advertised and, if he is not competent to do so, he will lose his license and the risk is removed from the public. It isn't much different than social contract that establishes certain laws to enforce the mutual concepts of right and wrong, insists that certain fire safety be employed, that personal conduct cannot unreasonably put our neighbor at risk, etc.

And for practical reasons, the business license also informs the local and state government who owes taxes and fees as the business owner's proper share of costs for government services.

At the same time, those who do not wish to participate in the social contract can choose to live in unincorporated areas and sell right off the farm or whatever. Of course the federal government and some state governments now also strictly regulates that. (We once bought farm fresh eggs, milk, cream, veggies, pecans, apples, peaches etc. from neighboring farms. It is much more difficult to do that now.) But theoretically, when there was much less regulation, those farmers could discriminate against anybody with impunity.

 

[bripat9643]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

In a nutshell:

IMO the law should require, as a condition of the business license, all businesses to sell whatever product a business has in stock and normally sells to all customers without prejudice. A businessman should certainly be able to specify reasonable requirements of conduct and dress in order to receive service and he should be able to apply those to everybody.

The law should not require the businessman to provide a product that the businessman normally would not carry to anybody, nor to go to any location the businessman chooses not to go, nor participate or be present at any activity the businessman chooses to avoid for any reason.

Businesses shouldn't be required to have a license, period. Why should anyone have to ask permission from the government to earn a living?

Such should be left up to each state or municipality--never the federal government--but I support business owners needing a license to conduct business within a state or municipality because some standards are appropriate to require in the interest of the general welfare.

You want a plumber to be licensed because it could be dangerous to the customer and even his neighbors if the plumber is not qualified to do plumbing. Any establishment offering food products or other sustances that could be harmful to people without the people having any way to know of the danger should be regulated.

However if a state or municipality does not wish to exercise such protections for the public, that should be their right to decide too.

I draw the line at any place of business being ordered what products they MUST carry or what services they MUST provide.

State licenses aren't required to produce the results you desire. Private certifications are just as effective.

Are they? And who assures us that those who provide the certification are competent to provide it?

For me, it's a trade off. Within the concept of social contract, a business license to do business is in the best interst of all as it does give us a reasonable expectation that the business owner will provide safe products and services as advertised and, if he is not competent to do so, he will lose his license and the risk is removed from the public. It isn't much different than social contract that establishes certain laws to enforce the mutual concepts of right and wrong, insists that certain fire safety be employed, that personal conduct cannot unreasonably put our neighbor at risk, etc.

And for practical reasons, the business license also informs the local and state government who owes taxes and fees as the business owner's proper share of costs for government services.

At the same time, those who do not wish to participate in the social contract can choose to live in unincorporated areas and sell right off the farm or whatever. Of course the federal government and some state governments now also strictly regulates that. (We once bought farm fresh eggs, milk, cream, veggies, pecans, apples, peaches etc. from neighboring farms. It is much more difficult to do that now.) But theoretically, when there was much less regulation, those farmers could discriminate against anybody with impunity.

The social contract is a myth.

You don't trust a private business to do certifications, but you trust corrupt government officials? BTW, Angie's List is exactly the kind of certification company I'm talking about. Angie's customers assign the ratings. I trust that far more than some "license" that anyone can get by plunking down a certain amount of money.

 

[Foxfyre]

In a nutshell:

IMO the law should require, as a condition of the business license, all businesses to sell whatever product a business has in stock and normally sells to all customers without prejudice. A businessman should certainly be able to specify reasonable requirements of conduct and dress in order to receive service and he should be able to apply those to everybody.

The law should not require the businessman to provide a product that the businessman normally would not carry to anybody, nor to go to any location the businessman chooses not to go, nor participate or be present at any activity the businessman chooses to avoid for any reason.

Businesses shouldn't be required to have a license, period. Why should anyone have to ask permission from the government to earn a living?

Such should be left up to each state or municipality--never the federal government--but I support business owners needing a license to conduct business within a state or municipality because some standards are appropriate to require in the interest of the general welfare.

You want a plumber to be licensed because it could be dangerous to the customer and even his neighbors if the plumber is not qualified to do plumbing. Any establishment offering food products or other sustances that could be harmful to people without the people having any way to know of the danger should be regulated.

However if a state or municipality does not wish to exercise such protections for the public, that should be their right to decide too.

I draw the line at any place of business being ordered what products they MUST carry or what services they MUST provide.

State licenses aren't required to produce the results you desire. Private certifications are just as effective.

Are they? And who assures us that those who provide the certification are competent to provide it?

For me, it's a trade off. Within the concept of social contract, a business license to do business is in the best interst of all as it does give us a reasonable expectation that the business owner will provide safe products and services as advertised and, if he is not competent to do so, he will lose his license and the risk is removed from the public. It isn't much different than social contract that establishes certain laws to enforce the mutual concepts of right and wrong, insists that certain fire safety be employed, that personal conduct cannot unreasonably put our neighbor at risk, etc.

And for practical reasons, the business license also informs the local and state government who owes taxes and fees as the business owner's proper share of costs for government services.

At the same time, those who do not wish to participate in the social contract can choose to live in unincorporated areas and sell right off the farm or whatever. Of course the federal government and some state governments now also strictly regulates that. (We once bought farm fresh eggs, milk, cream, veggies, pecans, apples, peaches etc. from neighboring farms. It is much more difficult to do that now.) But theoretically, when there was much less regulation, those farmers could discriminate against anybody with impunity.

The social contract is a myth.

You don't trust a private business to do certifications, but you trust corrupt government officials? BTW, Angie's List is exactly the kind of certification company I'm talking about. Angie's customers assign the ratings. I trust that far more than some "license" that anyone can get by plunking down a certain amount of money.

Well I'm not going to participate in a thread derailment over whether social contract exists. But I can assure you that it does, it is valid, and it is an important part of self governance. The U.S. Constitution in fact is a good example of social contract.

But it is your right to object to business licensing as much as it is my right to believe it's a good idea. And you won't find anybody who is more right wing libertarian than I am.

 

[dblack]

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

Only be Nazis like you. Private property is private property.

Nope. Just ask Ravi and her libtard "you didn't build that" friends.

A private business is not a private business because it serves the public.

Yea, I know. My head is spinning, too.

No, it is still a private business. A private business that is a public accommodation business has to serve the general public.

Maybe it's because I've spent much of my life doing small scale contracting (nominally operating my own business, but essentially an employee for hire), but I don't see a clear distinction being made here. And I certainly don't see any difference in principle. If it's wrong for a shop owner to deny services to a customer for spurious reasons, then it's equally wrong for a service provider or employee, or for that matter a customer, to deny patronage for similar reasons.

And that gets around to what really bugs me about all of this. It's the reasoning that is being targeted. We're essentially designating certain biases and prejudices for suppression (certainly not all). In a democracy, that will generally mean that unpopular biases will be the targets. Minorities will be scapegoated. The Constitution is supposed to protect us from this kind of abuse of government.

 

[bripat9643]

Businesses shouldn't be required to have a license, period. Why should anyone have to ask permission from the government to earn a living?

Such should be left up to each state or municipality--never the federal government--but I support business owners needing a license to conduct business within a state or municipality because some standards are appropriate to require in the interest of the general welfare.

You want a plumber to be licensed because it could be dangerous to the customer and even his neighbors if the plumber is not qualified to do plumbing. Any establishment offering food products or other sustances that could be harmful to people without the people having any way to know of the danger should be regulated.

However if a state or municipality does not wish to exercise such protections for the public, that should be their right to decide too.

I draw the line at any place of business being ordered what products they MUST carry or what services they MUST provide.

State licenses aren't required to produce the results you desire. Private certifications are just as effective.

Are they? And who assures us that those who provide the certification are competent to provide it?

For me, it's a trade off. Within the concept of social contract, a business license to do business is in the best interst of all as it does give us a reasonable expectation that the business owner will provide safe products and services as advertised and, if he is not competent to do so, he will lose his license and the risk is removed from the public. It isn't much different than social contract that establishes certain laws to enforce the mutual concepts of right and wrong, insists that certain fire safety be employed, that personal conduct cannot unreasonably put our neighbor at risk, etc.

And for practical reasons, the business license also informs the local and state government who owes taxes and fees as the business owner's proper share of costs for government services.

At the same time, those who do not wish to participate in the social contract can choose to live in unincorporated areas and sell right off the farm or whatever. Of course the federal government and some state governments now also strictly regulates that. (We once bought farm fresh eggs, milk, cream, veggies, pecans, apples, peaches etc. from neighboring farms. It is much more difficult to do that now.) But theoretically, when there was much less regulation, those farmers could discriminate against anybody with impunity.

The social contract is a myth.

You don't trust a private business to do certifications, but you trust corrupt government officials? BTW, Angie's List is exactly the kind of certification company I'm talking about. Angie's customers assign the ratings. I trust that far more than some "license" that anyone can get by plunking down a certain amount of money.

Well I'm not going to participate in a thread derailment over whether social contract exists. But I can assure you that it does, it is valid, and it is an important part of self governance. The U.S. Constitution in fact is a good example of social contract.

If the "social contract" exists, then where is it, and when did I sign it?

The Constitution isn't a contract, and I certainly didn't agree to it.

But it is your right to object to business licensing as much as it is my right to believe it's a good idea. And you won't find anybody who is more right wing libertarian than I am.

Business licensing isn't just a bad idea, it's a violation of our rights. Government has no legitimate authority to determine who may open a business and who may not. I could give you a lot of reasons based on practical grounds, but the moral argument is sufficient.

BTW, all the libertarians I've ever met are opposed to licensing in principle.[/QUOTE]

 

[SAYIT]

... Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

 

[mudwhistle]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

Are you saying you want protection from ever being embarrassed?

 

[Skylar]

Agree. If you are a business that is operated to make money off the public then you need to make money off the public, no matter who they are. Otherwise, find other employment.

Another bullshit principle of liberalism with no basis in fact. What if you only want to make money off of heterosexuals?

Open a Christian bookstore, be a portrait painter, cater Christian events, start a fee based club. The list goes on and on and on.

You didn't provide a shred of evidence to support your point. You also suck at career counselling.

None of what I listed are considered public accommodation. It is easily possible to tailor your business to serve only the segment you wish to serve.

Yes, it is easy. Simply decline to serve anyone you don't want to serve. Any other required means are infringements on your property rights imposed by a fascist police state.

No it doesn't. As the authority of States to regulate intrastate commerce is unquestioned. Its completely reasonable to require those engaged in commerce in a State to treat their customers fairly and equally.

Oh, and you have no idea what 'fascism' is, Brit. You're using it as a generic pejorative to describe anything you don't like.

 

[Foxfyre]

Such should be left up to each state or municipality--never the federal government--but I support business owners needing a license to conduct business within a state or municipality because some standards are appropriate to require in the interest of the general welfare.

You want a plumber to be licensed because it could be dangerous to the customer and even his neighbors if the plumber is not qualified to do plumbing. Any establishment offering food products or other sustances that could be harmful to people without the people having any way to know of the danger should be regulated.

However if a state or municipality does not wish to exercise such protections for the public, that should be their right to decide too.

I draw the line at any place of business being ordered what products they MUST carry or what services they MUST provide.

State licenses aren't required to produce the results you desire. Private certifications are just as effective.

Are they? And who assures us that those who provide the certification are competent to provide it?

For me, it's a trade off. Within the concept of social contract, a business license to do business is in the best interst of all as it does give us a reasonable expectation that the business owner will provide safe products and services as advertised and, if he is not competent to do so, he will lose his license and the risk is removed from the public. It isn't much different than social contract that establishes certain laws to enforce the mutual concepts of right and wrong, insists that certain fire safety be employed, that personal conduct cannot unreasonably put our neighbor at risk, etc.

And for practical reasons, the business license also informs the local and state government who owes taxes and fees as the business owner's proper share of costs for government services.

At the same time, those who do not wish to participate in the social contract can choose to live in unincorporated areas and sell right off the farm or whatever. Of course the federal government and some state governments now also strictly regulates that. (We once bought farm fresh eggs, milk, cream, veggies, pecans, apples, peaches etc. from neighboring farms. It is much more difficult to do that now.) But theoretically, when there was much less regulation, those farmers could discriminate against anybody with impunity.

The social contract is a myth.

You don't trust a private business to do certifications, but you trust corrupt government officials? BTW, Angie's List is exactly the kind of certification company I'm talking about. Angie's customers assign the ratings. I trust that far more than some "license" that anyone can get by plunking down a certain amount of money.

Well I'm not going to participate in a thread derailment over whether social contract exists. But I can assure you that it does, it is valid, and it is an important part of self governance. The U.S. Constitution in fact is a good example of social contract.

If the "social contract" exists, then where is it, and when did I sign it?

The Constitution isn't a contract, and I certainly didn't agree to it.

But it is your right to object to business licensing as much as it is my right to believe it's a good idea. And you won't find anybody who is more right wing libertarian than I am.

Business licensing isn't just a bad idea, it's a violation of our rights. Government has no legitimate authority to determine who may open a business and who may not. I could give you a lot of reasons based on practical grounds, but the moral argument is sufficient.

BTW, all the libertarians I've ever met are opposed to licensing in principle.

If you look up the term "social contract' you will see that 'contract' in this sense has a different meaning from a legal contract. It implies a formal agreement between people of how to organize themselves into a mutually beneficial society. When a small town gets together and organizes a volunteer fire department, that is social contract. When the small town folks get together and agree they need to elect a Sheriff or other law enforcement authority, that is a social contract. Whatever the people mutually agree on as the system they will all live by is social contract. So in that sense the Constitution absolutely was social contract.

We'll just have to disagree that business licenses are a violation of our rights. And now you've met a libertarian who is not necessarily against licensing in principle.

 

[Skylar]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

I didn't say that did I.

How is the situation significantly different?

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

Yeah, but a baker sells cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. So how would denying those products to gays be significantly different than denying them to blacks?

No one is asking a baker to say, sell auto parts. Or a pizzaria to sell children's clothing. All that is being required of them by PA laws is that they sell what they normally carry regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or creed of their customer.

 

[bripat9643]

... Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

No one said anything about "PLANNING a wedding." They are participating in it. Doing anything for a wedding is participating in it.

 

[Skylar]

Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.

Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

Business are subject to regulation, as the regulation of intrastate commerce is a power of the States. If you want to conduct business with the public, you're subject to the minimum standards of business conduct required by your state.

 

[Skylar]

... Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

No one said anything about "PLANNING a wedding." They are participating in it. Doing anything for a wedding is participating in it.

They're not getting married. No one is asking a baker to marry a homosexual. Or to have gay sex. They're asked to do nothing more than what they already do: sell cake.

If their religion makes it impossible for them to do their jobs, then they should find another job.

 

[bripat9643]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

I didn't say that did I.

How is the situation significantly different?

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

Yeah, but a baker sells cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. So how would denying those products to gays be significantly different than denying them to blacks?

No one is asking a baker to say, sell auto parts. Or a pizzaria to sell children's clothing. All that is being required of them by PA laws is that they sell what they normally carry regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or creed of their customer.

Your queer logic doesn't persuade, fairy. You don't get to decide for a business what it does. That's for the owners to decide. It least in a free country the owners get to decide. The bottom line is that the government at the behest of queers is forcing them to do something they don't want to do. That's fascism.

 

[bripat9643]

Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.

Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

Business are subject to regulation, as the regulation of intrastate commerce is a power of the States. If you want to conduct business with the public, you're subject to the minimum standards of business conduct required by your state.

Here is what the commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause​

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

Note, that doesn't include bakers, photographers or pizza restaurants.

 

[Katzndogz]

... Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

If it was as simple as baking a fucking cake, get a box of Betty Crocker and go into business.

 

[Skylar]

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

I didn't say that did I.

How is the situation significantly different?

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

Yeah, but a baker sells cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. So how would denying those products to gays be significantly different than denying them to blacks?

No one is asking a baker to say, sell auto parts. Or a pizzaria to sell children's clothing. All that is being required of them by PA laws is that they sell what they normally carry regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or creed of their customer.

Your queer logic doesn't persuade, fairy. You don't get to decide for a business what it does.

Oh, the legality of PA laws is well established legally. Business is commerce. And commerce is well within the authority of the state to regulate.

You say otherwise. Um.....who gives a shit? Legally speaking, you're nobody. Your agreement or disagreement with well established legal precedent is irrelevant. That you're 'unpersuaded' is equally meaningless.

 

[bripat9643]

... Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

No one said anything about "PLANNING a wedding." They are participating in it. Doing anything for a wedding is participating in it.

They're not getting married. No one is asking a baker to marry a homosexual. Or to have gay sex. They're asked to do nothing more than what they already do: sell cake.

If their religion makes it impossible for them to do their jobs, then they should find another job.

No one said they were getting married. Your predelection for straw man arguments is duly noted. As I said previously, they determine what their job is, not you or a gang of militant fascist queers.