If I walk into your restaurant and you refuse to serve me for lunch because I was gay. That is no ok. Me being gay has nothing to do with you serving me lunch. I don't care about your beliefs.
If I were to ask you to cater my wedding, thats a different story since you are actively partaking in something. I am fine with that.
I just really want to make sure that this is not misconstrued.
"allowing you to dine in my restaurant is normalization and tacit support of homosexual lifestyles, so i will not serve you."
"giving you medical aid means i have to come in contact with you, so you'll need to find someone else."
what happens when your bank no longer wants to support gay communities and closes your account? when your bus driver is homophobic and doesn't want gay people on their bus?
Same situation here, they can refuse to custom design a website, but can't refuse off the shelf work because of their gender/orientation.
Why not? Cooking is as much of an art as baking a cake and ergo they should have the right to deny serving you food under their right to free expression.
This is literally the exact argument that has been used in both of these cases. Well, except in this case the site was literally made up and the supreme court fell for a fake case with zero standing.
Except it wasn't.
If you know the cake case, they ruled that there was nothing wrong because they offered to sell them an off the shelf cake, they just refused to write a message they didn't support.
> Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
Then why are you making up facts of the case to try and pretend it's going to lead to restaurants banning gay people?