Right. I won't make a Nazi website for anyone.
If I just make Nazi websites for black people, and refuse to make a Nazi website for some people, it isn't the Nazi website - it is the person that I disagree with.
If I just make Nazi websites for black people, and refuse to make a Nazi website for some people, it isn't the Nazi website - it is the person that I disagree with.
This is a highly contrived example, but it could be about anything, not just sexual orientation. A black guy walks into a white guy's barber shop and asks for a bespoke African haircut. The white barber refuses on the grounds that he doesn't think he would do a good job since he has never done one before and doesn't intend to learn how to do those types of haircuts. The barber doesn't tell the black guy to leave, but he tells him to pick a different haircut. Is this discrimination? Should the barber be compelled to perform the haircut he doesn't want to do against his will? What if he then does a bad job? Is that a hate crime?
Is the barber analogy apt? Not really. White and Black haircuts are generally considered different "categories", and offering one does not generally confer an expectation to offer the other.
Is the pancake analogy apt? Not really. A pancake of "people kissing" is substitutable. It might not be the first choice for a gay couple, but there's no intrinsic reason they couldn't get a pancake with a flower on it instead. Now, if you were offering portraits of couples kissing, and you refused to do gay couples, that would be analogous — they're not going to get a portrait of a different couple, so this policy essentially means you don't accept gay customers.
Going the compulsory route is going to lead to decreased religious freedoms and increased social discord between the secular and religious demographics of the country, IMO.
Anyway, in my original reply to you I mentioned a solution that prevents discrimination without compelling speech. If you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service.
> Anyway, in my original reply to you I mentioned a solution that prevents discrimination without compelling speech. If you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service.
In my opinion, that solution is a slippery slope that will quickly infringe on religious freedom. Soon: "Pastors/priests/bishops/etc. are no longer allowed to perform weddings unless they also perform gay weddings (against their beliefs). After all, if you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service."
So then you'd have lots of pastors refusing to perform any marriages to avoid doing something against their beliefs, which, in turn, would vindicate all the people opposed to gay marriage who were worried gay marriage would "infringe on the religious sanctity of marriage". Religious freedom down, social discord up.
There's an alternate scenario, of course. Soon: "web designers across the nation refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples". Religious freedom up, social discord also up. I'm not sure why you think it's only a one-way street; allowing religion to be used as a pretext to discriminate against marginalized groups is also surefire way to divide people.
It seems like we're rapidly approaching a point at which further debate is fruitless, so let me clearly state my position here: where religious freedom and equal protection clash, I am staunchly in favor of subordinating the former to the latter.
Making a website for a gay couple and a straight couple requires the same sets of skills...
In both of your examples, the set of skills is different.
Baking a cake for a gay couple and a straight couple... same skills...