Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no, it means you have actual business expenses. it's called reality.
Yes. And they are being prevented from buying a cake others can buy. It's also called reality. Not special protection, just being treated like everyone else and taking advantage of a law that says they must be treated like everyone else.
They are not being prevented by government from doing so, which would be wrong.
No, they are not being prevented at all - thanks to the government. I keep saying this. This is not a black and white issue. There are valid arguments on both sides, as in any case where there are conflicting rights.
I think you mis-understand. They are not being prevented from buying cake, they are being prevented from buying THAT cake, because the seller does not want to participate in the transaction, and government is not forcing the issue on either side. Plus, there are plenty of other cakes out there, sold by people more than willing to take the business. That wasn't the case in the Jim Crow Era.
And others are not being prevented from buying THAT cake. It comes down to the same thing. The argument is valid, as is yours. For me it is a matter of balancing the conflict and I happen to fall on the side of the seller in this instance. I might not in another. But there is no Constitutional right on either side of the issue. This falls under state law, or federal law if interstate commerce is involved.
The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.
and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.
Not everyone should be treated equally. That's why there are handicapped parking spots right up front. However, I find it hard to see the logic in the argument that preventing a specific group from being treating differently than other groups is giving them special protection. It's just making sure they are treated equally. In fact, I think it can be more soundly argued that giving a group the right to treat a specific group differently based upon religious beliefs is giving those people special protection. So you actually don't have a problem with giving special protection, you just want it given to the people you agree with. The other side want it given to the people they agree with.
As to whether the first amendment trumps commerce regulations, that is for the courts to decide.
We choose to afford extra concern to the handicapped, more so, the fine for parking in their spot is $100, not $150k. We don't take the emotional damage done to the disabled person into consideration, we just fine the guy parking in the spot.
I actually DON'T agree with people who refuse service to gays for religious reasons, and that's the whole point. You are only defending freedom when you defend things you don't agree with.
You said people should be treated equally, but you support the right of people to do exactly the opposite.
This really isn't a simple, black and white issue. It's complicated with serious consequences. I'll leave it to the state. If someone feels they are living in a state with laws their religious beliefs will not allow them to obey, they need to either move or accept the consequences of staying. That is part of freedom.
the states can't be trusted with constitutional rights. that's why federal troops had to march black kids into southern schools.
The laws involved in these cases are state laws, not federal laws. And this particular issue is not a Constitutional one.
Yes. And they are being prevented from buying a cake others can buy. It's also called reality. Not special protection, just being treated like everyone else and taking advantage of a law that says they must be treated like everyone else.
They are not being prevented by government from doing so, which would be wrong.
No, they are not being prevented at all - thanks to the government. I keep saying this. This is not a black and white issue. There are valid arguments on both sides, as in any case where there are conflicting rights.
I think you mis-understand. They are not being prevented from buying cake, they are being prevented from buying THAT cake, because the seller does not want to participate in the transaction, and government is not forcing the issue on either side. Plus, there are plenty of other cakes out there, sold by people more than willing to take the business. That wasn't the case in the Jim Crow Era.
And others are not being prevented from buying THAT cake. It comes down to the same thing. The argument is valid, as is yours. For me it is a matter of balancing the conflict and I happen to fall on the side of the seller in this instance. I might not in another. But there is no Constitutional right on either side of the issue. This falls under state law, or federal law if interstate commerce is involved.
There is the inherent belief that government should not get involved unless absolutely necessary, where there is an inherent, and tangible need for it to intervene. Black people being denied use of a water fountain is a good example, gay people being denied access to a large majority of bakers in an area would be another.
Not everyone should be treated equally. That's why there are handicapped parking spots right up front. However, I find it hard to see the logic in the argument that preventing a specific group from being treating differently than other groups is giving them special protection. It's just making sure they are treated equally. In fact, I think it can be more soundly argued that giving a group the right to treat a specific group differently based upon religious beliefs is giving those people special protection. So you actually don't have a problem with giving special protection, you just want it given to the people you agree with. The other side want it given to the people they agree with.
As to whether the first amendment trumps commerce regulations, that is for the courts to decide.
We choose to afford extra concern to the handicapped, more so, the fine for parking in their spot is $100, not $150k. We don't take the emotional damage done to the disabled person into consideration, we just fine the guy parking in the spot.
I actually DON'T agree with people who refuse service to gays for religious reasons, and that's the whole point. You are only defending freedom when you defend things you don't agree with.
You said people should be treated equally, but you support the right of people to do exactly the opposite.
This really isn't a simple, black and white issue. It's complicated with serious consequences. I'll leave it to the state. If someone feels they are living in a state with laws their religious beliefs will not allow them to obey, they need to either move or accept the consequences of staying. That is part of freedom.
the states can't be trusted with constitutional rights. that's why federal troops had to march black kids into southern schools.
The laws involved in these cases are state laws, not federal laws. And this particular issue is not a Constitutional one.
you understand that the difference between what the states can regulate and the feds can regulate in this area is the same, right?
Yes. And they are being prevented from buying a cake others can buy. It's also called reality. Not special protection, just being treated like everyone else and taking advantage of a law that says they must be treated like everyone else.
They are not being prevented by government from doing so, which would be wrong.
No, they are not being prevented at all - thanks to the government. I keep saying this. This is not a black and white issue. There are valid arguments on both sides, as in any case where there are conflicting rights.
I think you mis-understand. They are not being prevented from buying cake, they are being prevented from buying THAT cake, because the seller does not want to participate in the transaction, and government is not forcing the issue on either side. Plus, there are plenty of other cakes out there, sold by people more than willing to take the business. That wasn't the case in the Jim Crow Era.
And others are not being prevented from buying THAT cake. It comes down to the same thing. The argument is valid, as is yours. For me it is a matter of balancing the conflict and I happen to fall on the side of the seller in this instance. I might not in another. But there is no Constitutional right on either side of the issue. This falls under state law, or federal law if interstate commerce is involved.
There is the inherent belief that government should not get involved unless absolutely necessary, where there is an inherent, and tangible need for it to intervene. Black people being denied use of a water fountain is a good example, gay people being denied access to a large majority of bakers in an area would be another.
This is no proof the mainstream accepts this revision to the PA laws. Let's take a vote of the People, okay? Now that gays have shown their hand by persecuting people who have religious objections to being forced to participate in a gay wedding, they won't be so willing to give approval.Laws against discrimination were passed long before the LGBT issue grew to what it is today, and so you cannot soundly argue that laws against discrimination prove that the mainstream has accepted LGBT.That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society.
Laws against discrimination have been changed to include LGBT. That is a very sound argument that the mainstream has accepted it. Those laws were not changed in a vacuum.
The baker baked cakes for them for years. It's when they wanted to force the Baker to participate in their gay wedding with the cake cutting is where she drew the lineThey want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else.
They want the same goods and services as anyone else. Ordering a cake from a cake baker is completely reasonable. Denying a cake because of your customer's sexual orientation isn't.
And given that the overwhleming majority of opposition to gays is irrationally based in religion, what can they do when their mere *existence* is an offense.
You're violating the free exercise of religion. So you're wrong!They want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else.
That pretty much sums it up for both sides of the issue.
The difference would be that ordering a cake from someone who makes cake is an explictly reasonable, lawful act.
Denying cake to a customer because of their sexual orientation is an unreasonable, in some cases unlawful act.
Gays aren't demanding 'respect' from a baker. All they're demanding is the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Which is also completely reasonable.
No. That isn't the difference at all because you are only seeing it from one side. The other side is the person ordering the cake just wants a cake, the person refusing is following deeply held beliefs.
I'm pretty sure that the PA laws aren't splitting this one down the middle like Solomon.
And I can respect that the religious have deeply held beliefs. But someone believing something doesn't exempt them from the law. If such were the case then we'd have a system of religiously based 'Sovereign Citizens'. Where only those laws you agreed with applied to you.
That's not our system. Nor has it ever been.
If the laws were created to target the religious, I'd be with you 100%. But they're general laws that don't target the religious specifically. Nor were intended to. They're discrimination laws that a handful of religious people (3 so far) have run into as they conduct business with the public. Christians aren't special and they aren't exempt. There isn't one set of more lenient laws for them...and a harsher set for all the rest of us.
Its the same laws for all of us. And the idea that you can merely 'believe' a law away isn't consistent with our system of law. Nor should be.
Plus.....we're already seeing this expanding. Now there are auto mechanics that are claiming they shouldn't have to serve gay customers at all. And using your 'deeply held belief' standard, they'd be perfectly justified.
The baker baked cakes for them for years. It's when they wanted to force the Baker to participate in their gay wedding with the cake cutting is where she drew the lineThey want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?They are subject to the same laws as anyone else. This is the part I don't understand: why Christians believe that they are somehow special and above the law. THat the law that everyone else has to follow doesn't apply to them.
Gays and lesbians are seeking nothing more than to be treated like everyone else.
They want the same goods and services as anyone else. Ordering a cake from a cake baker is completely reasonable. Denying a cake because of your customer's sexual orientation isn't.
And given that the overwhleming majority of opposition to gays is irrationally based in religion, what can they do when their mere *existence* is an offense.
You're violating the free exercise of religion. So you're wrong!They want to force others to respect their choices by refusing to accept the choices of others...?
That pretty much sums it up for both sides of the issue.
The difference would be that ordering a cake from someone who makes cake is an explictly reasonable, lawful act.
Denying cake to a customer because of their sexual orientation is an unreasonable, in some cases unlawful act.
Gays aren't demanding 'respect' from a baker. All they're demanding is the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Which is also completely reasonable.
No. That isn't the difference at all because you are only seeing it from one side. The other side is the person ordering the cake just wants a cake, the person refusing is following deeply held beliefs.
I'm pretty sure that the PA laws aren't splitting this one down the middle like Solomon.
And I can respect that the religious have deeply held beliefs. But someone believing something doesn't exempt them from the law. If such were the case then we'd have a system of religiously based 'Sovereign Citizens'. Where only those laws you agreed with applied to you.
That's not our system. Nor has it ever been.
If the laws were created to target the religious, I'd be with you 100%. But they're general laws that don't target the religious specifically. Nor were intended to. They're discrimination laws that a handful of religious people (3 so far) have run into as they conduct business with the public. Christians aren't special and they aren't exempt. There isn't one set of more lenient laws for them...and a harsher set for all the rest of us.
Its the same laws for all of us. And the idea that you can merely 'believe' a law away isn't consistent with our system of law. Nor should be.
Plus.....we're already seeing this expanding. Now there are auto mechanics that are claiming they shouldn't have to serve gay customers at all. And using your 'deeply held belief' standard, they'd be perfectly justified.
This is no proof the mainstream accepts this revision to the PA laws. Let's take a vote of the People, okay? Now that gays have shown their hand by persecuting people who have religious objections to being forced to participate in a gay wedding, they won't be so willing to give approval.Laws against discrimination were passed long before the LGBT issue grew to what it is today, and so you cannot soundly argue that laws against discrimination prove that the mainstream has accepted LGBT.That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society.
Laws against discrimination have been changed to include LGBT. That is a very sound argument that the mainstream has accepted it. Those laws were not changed in a vacuum.
We choose to afford extra concern to the handicapped, more so, the fine for parking in their spot is $100, not $150k. We don't take the emotional damage done to the disabled person into consideration, we just fine the guy parking in the spot.
I actually DON'T agree with people who refuse service to gays for religious reasons, and that's the whole point. You are only defending freedom when you defend things you don't agree with.
You said people should be treated equally, but you support the right of people to do exactly the opposite.
This really isn't a simple, black and white issue. It's complicated with serious consequences. I'll leave it to the state. If someone feels they are living in a state with laws their religious beliefs will not allow them to obey, they need to either move or accept the consequences of staying. That is part of freedom.
the states can't be trusted with constitutional rights. that's why federal troops had to march black kids into southern schools.
The laws involved in these cases are state laws, not federal laws. And this particular issue is not a Constitutional one.
you understand that the difference between what the states can regulate and the feds can regulate in this area is the same, right?
Not necessarily. But in general that is the case. The thing is, there are no federal laws which apply to these particular cases. They are all based in state laws. Even the marriage cases are based in 14th amendment application to state laws, not the application of federal law (and I know the Constitution is federal, I'm just separating it out here).
They are not being prevented by government from doing so, which would be wrong.
No, they are not being prevented at all - thanks to the government. I keep saying this. This is not a black and white issue. There are valid arguments on both sides, as in any case where there are conflicting rights.
I think you mis-understand. They are not being prevented from buying cake, they are being prevented from buying THAT cake, because the seller does not want to participate in the transaction, and government is not forcing the issue on either side. Plus, there are plenty of other cakes out there, sold by people more than willing to take the business. That wasn't the case in the Jim Crow Era.
And others are not being prevented from buying THAT cake. It comes down to the same thing. The argument is valid, as is yours. For me it is a matter of balancing the conflict and I happen to fall on the side of the seller in this instance. I might not in another. But there is no Constitutional right on either side of the issue. This falls under state law, or federal law if interstate commerce is involved.
There is the inherent belief that government should not get involved unless absolutely necessary, where there is an inherent, and tangible need for it to intervene. Black people being denied use of a water fountain is a good example, gay people being denied access to a large majority of bakers in an area would be another.
There is no inherent belief and even if there were it would be irrelevant. The states have the authority to regulate this. There is nothing in the Constitution which says they can't. You are free to oppose it, to petition the government, to run for office to fight against it, but the states still have the authority. There is nothing in the Constitution or in any law in this nation I am aware of which says that every law must please everyone. The 14th amendment says the laws must be applied equally, it doesn't say they must be fair.
You said people should be treated equally, but you support the right of people to do exactly the opposite.
This really isn't a simple, black and white issue. It's complicated with serious consequences. I'll leave it to the state. If someone feels they are living in a state with laws their religious beliefs will not allow them to obey, they need to either move or accept the consequences of staying. That is part of freedom.
the states can't be trusted with constitutional rights. that's why federal troops had to march black kids into southern schools.
The laws involved in these cases are state laws, not federal laws. And this particular issue is not a Constitutional one.
you understand that the difference between what the states can regulate and the feds can regulate in this area is the same, right?
Not necessarily. But in general that is the case. The thing is, there are no federal laws which apply to these particular cases. They are all based in state laws. Even the marriage cases are based in 14th amendment application to state laws, not the application of federal law (and I know the Constitution is federal, I'm just separating it out here).
I agree with that. In fact, I even agree full faith and credit demands all states recognize marriages from other states, even ones that don't issue SSM licenses themselves. What I don't see is the 14th forcing states to issue them themselves, because to me SSM and OSM are not "equal". SSM is an entirely new concept, which I do agree with, but only if the State legislatures modify the marriage contract to expand to include it.
the states can't be trusted with constitutional rights. that's why federal troops had to march black kids into southern schools.
The laws involved in these cases are state laws, not federal laws. And this particular issue is not a Constitutional one.
you understand that the difference between what the states can regulate and the feds can regulate in this area is the same, right?
Not necessarily. But in general that is the case. The thing is, there are no federal laws which apply to these particular cases. They are all based in state laws. Even the marriage cases are based in 14th amendment application to state laws, not the application of federal law (and I know the Constitution is federal, I'm just separating it out here).
I agree with that. In fact, I even agree full faith and credit demands all states recognize marriages from other states, even ones that don't issue SSM licenses themselves. What I don't see is the 14th forcing states to issue them themselves, because to me SSM and OSM are not "equal". SSM is an entirely new concept, which I do agree with, but only if the State legislatures modify the marriage contract to expand to include it.
Marriage is not a new concept and so long as it is controlled by the state, it is nothing more than a legal contract providing benefits and obligations to the parties. There is no difference between SSM and OSM in terms of the nature of that contract. Per the 14th amendment, it should be applied equally to all citizens of that state. That's the argument for the 14th and it seems to be holding up in the courts. We'll see what SCOTUS does with it fairly soon and then it will be resolved - unless the court reverses itself at some time in the future. Personally, I find that argument persuasive.
No, they are not being prevented at all - thanks to the government. I keep saying this. This is not a black and white issue. There are valid arguments on both sides, as in any case where there are conflicting rights.
I think you mis-understand. They are not being prevented from buying cake, they are being prevented from buying THAT cake, because the seller does not want to participate in the transaction, and government is not forcing the issue on either side. Plus, there are plenty of other cakes out there, sold by people more than willing to take the business. That wasn't the case in the Jim Crow Era.
And others are not being prevented from buying THAT cake. It comes down to the same thing. The argument is valid, as is yours. For me it is a matter of balancing the conflict and I happen to fall on the side of the seller in this instance. I might not in another. But there is no Constitutional right on either side of the issue. This falls under state law, or federal law if interstate commerce is involved.
There is the inherent belief that government should not get involved unless absolutely necessary, where there is an inherent, and tangible need for it to intervene. Black people being denied use of a water fountain is a good example, gay people being denied access to a large majority of bakers in an area would be another.
There is no inherent belief and even if there were it would be irrelevant. The states have the authority to regulate this. There is nothing in the Constitution which says they can't. You are free to oppose it, to petition the government, to run for office to fight against it, but the states still have the authority. There is nothing in the Constitution or in any law in this nation I am aware of which says that every law must please everyone. The 14th amendment says the laws must be applied equally, it doesn't say they must be fair.
Very Lawful Neutral answer from you, and that's neither a compliment or an insult.
Ok, get rid of PA laws. I'll go along with that. What are you actively doing to get them repealed?This is no proof the mainstream accepts this revision to the PA laws. Let's take a vote of the People, okay? Now that gays have shown their hand by persecuting people who have religious objections to being forced to participate in a gay wedding, they won't be so willing to give approval.Laws against discrimination were passed long before the LGBT issue grew to what it is today, and so you cannot soundly argue that laws against discrimination prove that the mainstream has accepted LGBT.That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society.
Laws against discrimination have been changed to include LGBT. That is a very sound argument that the mainstream has accepted it. Those laws were not changed in a vacuum.
I think you mis-understand. They are not being prevented from buying cake, they are being prevented from buying THAT cake, because the seller does not want to participate in the transaction, and government is not forcing the issue on either side. Plus, there are plenty of other cakes out there, sold by people more than willing to take the business. That wasn't the case in the Jim Crow Era.
And others are not being prevented from buying THAT cake. It comes down to the same thing. The argument is valid, as is yours. For me it is a matter of balancing the conflict and I happen to fall on the side of the seller in this instance. I might not in another. But there is no Constitutional right on either side of the issue. This falls under state law, or federal law if interstate commerce is involved.
There is the inherent belief that government should not get involved unless absolutely necessary, where there is an inherent, and tangible need for it to intervene. Black people being denied use of a water fountain is a good example, gay people being denied access to a large majority of bakers in an area would be another.
There is no inherent belief and even if there were it would be irrelevant. The states have the authority to regulate this. There is nothing in the Constitution which says they can't. You are free to oppose it, to petition the government, to run for office to fight against it, but the states still have the authority. There is nothing in the Constitution or in any law in this nation I am aware of which says that every law must please everyone. The 14th amendment says the laws must be applied equally, it doesn't say they must be fair.
Very Lawful Neutral answer from you, and that's neither a compliment or an insult.
Thank you. I intended it as such.
You indicated that there is a tangible need if gay people were denied access to a large majority of bakers in the area. Suppose we have a small town in a rural area and there is only one baker. Does that create a tangible need? If so, aren't we then providing special protection to bakers in areas where there are multiple bakers? Why would a baker in a rural area have less of a right to their personal beliefs than one in an urban area?
I will tell you that I don't disagree with you but I don't have an answer to those questions. I think that is something which needs to be resolved by the communities themselves. So I am law neutral. I don't expect to be happy with every law or agree with every law. But I do think it is important that the people who live in a community have some say in how it is run. If that community imposes restrictions on its citizens unacceptable to the state, the state can step in. If that state imposes restrictions unacceptable to the nation, then the feds can step in. But I much prefer the control is local.
The laws involved in these cases are state laws, not federal laws. And this particular issue is not a Constitutional one.
you understand that the difference between what the states can regulate and the feds can regulate in this area is the same, right?
Not necessarily. But in general that is the case. The thing is, there are no federal laws which apply to these particular cases. They are all based in state laws. Even the marriage cases are based in 14th amendment application to state laws, not the application of federal law (and I know the Constitution is federal, I'm just separating it out here).
I agree with that. In fact, I even agree full faith and credit demands all states recognize marriages from other states, even ones that don't issue SSM licenses themselves. What I don't see is the 14th forcing states to issue them themselves, because to me SSM and OSM are not "equal". SSM is an entirely new concept, which I do agree with, but only if the State legislatures modify the marriage contract to expand to include it.
Marriage is not a new concept and so long as it is controlled by the state, it is nothing more than a legal contract providing benefits and obligations to the parties. There is no difference between SSM and OSM in terms of the nature of that contract. Per the 14th amendment, it should be applied equally to all citizens of that state. That's the argument for the 14th and it seems to be holding up in the courts. We'll see what SCOTUS does with it fairly soon and then it will be resolved - unless the court reverses itself at some time in the future. Personally, I find that argument persuasive.
Until 20 years ago the concept of two people of the same sex legally marrying was unheard of. There is no precedent for it in any culture, legal custom, or religious tradition. It is a radical departure from the Status Quo which requires the States themselves to modify the contract via the constitutionally proper method of legislation.
And before anyone goes to the Loving case, race as a barrier to marriage is a cultural thing, there are plenty of examples from antiquity to modern times of people of different races marrying, with laws against them being retroactive in nature, not clarifying in nature like current law rewrites to say marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
Polygamists have a far better argument when it comes to precedent because the past has seen marriages between multiple partners, even if it hasn't been a tradition or law in European culture.
To me, a change this radical has to happen democratically, not forced by the courts.
And others are not being prevented from buying THAT cake. It comes down to the same thing. The argument is valid, as is yours. For me it is a matter of balancing the conflict and I happen to fall on the side of the seller in this instance. I might not in another. But there is no Constitutional right on either side of the issue. This falls under state law, or federal law if interstate commerce is involved.
There is the inherent belief that government should not get involved unless absolutely necessary, where there is an inherent, and tangible need for it to intervene. Black people being denied use of a water fountain is a good example, gay people being denied access to a large majority of bakers in an area would be another.
There is no inherent belief and even if there were it would be irrelevant. The states have the authority to regulate this. There is nothing in the Constitution which says they can't. You are free to oppose it, to petition the government, to run for office to fight against it, but the states still have the authority. There is nothing in the Constitution or in any law in this nation I am aware of which says that every law must please everyone. The 14th amendment says the laws must be applied equally, it doesn't say they must be fair.
Very Lawful Neutral answer from you, and that's neither a compliment or an insult.
Thank you. I intended it as such.
You indicated that there is a tangible need if gay people were denied access to a large majority of bakers in the area. Suppose we have a small town in a rural area and there is only one baker. Does that create a tangible need? If so, aren't we then providing special protection to bakers in areas where there are multiple bakers? Why would a baker in a rural area have less of a right to their personal beliefs than one in an urban area?
I will tell you that I don't disagree with you but I don't have an answer to those questions. I think that is something which needs to be resolved by the communities themselves. So I am law neutral. I don't expect to be happy with every law or agree with every law. But I do think it is important that the people who live in a community have some say in how it is run. If that community imposes restrictions on its citizens unacceptable to the state, the state can step in. If that state imposes restrictions unacceptable to the nation, then the feds can step in. But I much prefer the control is local.
Considering two things, 1) there is probably always another baker within 20 miles unless you live in Alaska, and 2) the type of town that has one baker that doesn't want to work a gay wedding would probably have chased off any of its gay people a long long time ago, the scenario is a limited one at best.
The answer is you have to apply an impact analysis to BOTH sides of the equation, favoring the side of government not getting involved unless it absolutely has to, and only then for substantive economic impacts, or unless government itself is directly involved.
Right now the impact analysis is skewed by the whole concept of a "protective class" that grossly outweighs any other consideration. This was the proper thing to do when it came to blacks in the US during Jim crow, as it was pervasive government mandated discrimination that was the problem, which had a substantial economic impact on those being oppressed, but here we do not have wholesale commerce denial going on with regards to the group (gays) in question.
