I only wish the right wingers litigating to be able to discriminate against lgbt people would do what you hilariously do, and openly conflate that silly issue of "religious" belief about serving lgbt people with any business owner wanting to discriminate against any other protected group...just on the owner's whim.<quoted text>
Incorrectly in my opinion. Especially when it conflicts with property rights....I also believe that in general, an idea that has to be forced on someone is probably not a good one.
While there's little doubt that most of the homophobes pushing the former issue are racists and misogynists and christianists as well, such a conflation would put a quick end to the former, brewing issue. The latter issue is a total non starter.
I guess, while they rely on different "arguments," they are the same issue in a way. And the law regarding the government's interest in preventing this sort of overt discrimination is clear and long established. No serious players are challenging that principle...except when it comes to lgbt people and "religious" belief.
"An idea that has to be forced on someone is probably not a good one...."
As for the state compelling people, which is always "a bad idea": Of course you thought the required end to slavery, the required end to jim crow, the required income tax levies, the required environmental regulations for companies were bad ideas, because they were forced on people.
And there's a word for that sort of nutty reasoning - it starts with "Libertar" and ends with "Paul." Nutty.