Bakers...they won't stop if you just bake the cake...they want you to like it....

[2aguy]

Of course you don't its a Wiki article, and thus conforms to the progressive viewpoint due to editing. You were the one denying it was a contract, and I have shown your ignorance on this.

AND THERE GO THE GOALPOSTS!!!​

No, you showed me what the basis for your reasoning is and I showed you how flawed it was that this supposed "contract" doesn't include one thing about sex or race for that matter.

It has been always been one man and one woman in this country, its only in the first 2 decades of the 2000's that that has changed.

It used to be all whites married other whites, blacks married other blacks, etc... That changed and the ship of State has continued to sail just fine despite morons who try to row the boat in the other direction.

And if you guys want it changed the right way, by changing the law State by State by legislative action, I am all for it, I am just against forcing it judicially, and more so, forcing people to accept it privately on pain of ruin.

Marriages need to be recognized by all 50 states. Can you imagine a flight from California to Florida...for half the time when you're over the deep South, you and your partner won't be married.

No goalposts moved. You stated marriage was not a contract, and I proved you wrong. I used a wiki article that clearly defines it as a contract. Nice attempted gotcha, but only in your mind.

Pure BS.

Never made such a statement--quote me if you can.
And for "proof" you reached some wiki source that you didn't provide a link for.
Try again.

Again, race does not equal orientation.

The "contract" didn't mention sex or race must be the same or different.

Should people have to obey imaginary street signs as well? Maybe the ones that limit water fountains to whites only should say "heterosexual only" in your book?

Finally, the Court can decide FF&C applies, and force States to RECOGNIZE other marriages from other States regardless of orientation, and I would have zero issue with it, as there is precedent for that with regards to things like age requirements, and first cousin marriage. What the Court SHOULDN'T do is force a State to ISSUE marriages it doesn't want to with regards to SSM.

Gee, for someone so interested in making sure a baker who opens a public business isn't traumatized by baking a cake...you sure seem more than happy to erect artificial barrier after artificial barrier so other Americans can have equal rights.

Your statement was clear, you were trying to be snarky, got caught on it, and now refuse to admit it. Typical progressive.

Gee, and if you could quote me saying what you said I did, you'd man-up and do it. Since you can't...what does it say about your "manhood"?

And again, going back to 1960's governmental and institutional racism, and trying to equate it to the current situation. Just repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

Legalized discrimination was blown away by federal action. Your attempt to hold on to the last vestiges of a sad yesterday in America will be just as successful.

Equal rights apply to government making sure it treats people equally, you are talking about one citizen interacting with another, two different concepts.

So if they didn't want to bake a cake for a black person...they could do that and you'd be happy about it since that is what they are doing now..."interacting"....right?

Only government activity should be completely free of discrimination...since the goverment represents all citizens.....but private business....think of it like your home...you can hire or fire any service you want in your home....for now...until they get around to forcing you to not discriminate in hiring your plumber, electrician and handy men....and that day will come....

 

[Syriusly]

So you put up a sign that offends your customers and then complain when they don't want to do business with you

They had already done business with them and now the customers want to dishonor the agreement.

They are not done until the service is paid for and the product delivered

The customer wisely decided to take their business elsewhere

No- doesn't work that way.

If the customer ordered the ring, there is a contract and the customer is obligated to pay for the product that they ordered.

This is no different from the baker refusing to sell the cake violating the law- customers cannot violate the law either.

If this story is even true- the customers who refuse to pay for the ring that they ordered because of what a sign says on the wall, are just as guilty of breaking the law as the baker who refused to sell a cake to a gay couple.

The funny part is that the homophobes that are so outraged by this don't recognize that the law doesn't allow Customers to break a contract because of their personal beliefs, any more than the law allows a business to refuse to sell its product to customers because of the owners personal beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

Of course you don't its a Wiki article, and thus conforms to the progressive viewpoint due to editing. You were the one denying it was a contract, and I have shown your ignorance on this.

AND THERE GO THE GOALPOSTS!!!​

No, you showed me what the basis for your reasoning is and I showed you how flawed it was that this supposed "contract" doesn't include one thing about sex or race for that matter.

It has been always been one man and one woman in this country, its only in the first 2 decades of the 2000's that that has changed.

It used to be all whites married other whites, blacks married other blacks, etc... That changed and the ship of State has continued to sail just fine despite morons who try to row the boat in the other direction.

And if you guys want it changed the right way, by changing the law State by State by legislative action, I am all for it, I am just against forcing it judicially, and more so, forcing people to accept it privately on pain of ruin.

Marriages need to be recognized by all 50 states. Can you imagine a flight from California to Florida...for half the time when you're over the deep South, you and your partner won't be married.

No goalposts moved. You stated marriage was not a contract, and I proved you wrong. I used a wiki article that clearly defines it as a contract. Nice attempted gotcha, but only in your mind.

Pure BS.

Never made such a statement--quote me if you can.
And for "proof" you reached some wiki source that you didn't provide a link for.
Try again.

Again, race does not equal orientation.

The "contract" didn't mention sex or race must be the same or different.

Should people have to obey imaginary street signs as well? Maybe the ones that limit water fountains to whites only should say "heterosexual only" in your book?

Finally, the Court can decide FF&C applies, and force States to RECOGNIZE other marriages from other States regardless of orientation, and I would have zero issue with it, as there is precedent for that with regards to things like age requirements, and first cousin marriage. What the Court SHOULDN'T do is force a State to ISSUE marriages it doesn't want to with regards to SSM.

Gee, for someone so interested in making sure a baker who opens a public business isn't traumatized by baking a cake...you sure seem more than happy to erect artificial barrier after artificial barrier so other Americans can have equal rights.

Your statement was clear, you were trying to be snarky, got caught on it, and now refuse to admit it. Typical progressive.

Gee, and if you could quote me saying what you said I did, you'd man-up and do it. Since you can't...what does it say about your "manhood"?

And again, going back to 1960's governmental and institutional racism, and trying to equate it to the current situation. Just repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

Legalized discrimination was blown away by federal action. Your attempt to hold on to the last vestiges of a sad yesterday in America will be just as successful.

Equal rights apply to government making sure it treats people equally, you are talking about one citizen interacting with another, two different concepts.

So if they didn't want to bake a cake for a black person...they could do that and you'd be happy about it since that is what they are doing now..."interacting"....right?

You framed the question like you didn't think marriage was a contract. I answered you. Yes, in some places sex doesn't matter, I didn't deny that, again my issue is with the process used to get to that result, not the result itself. The contract in the USA is defined by the State legislatures of the issuing State.

That discrimination was systemic and unequal economically. Allowing a baker to not provide a service to a gay wedding is neither.

If they didn't want to, it shouldn't be an issue as it is no longer government sanctioned and systemic. Also, the power situation is no longer the same as in the 60's and before, as the government is no longer able to enforce said discrimination, which was the case in the 60's. Thus people had no recourse to go to someone else for the service.

 

[martybegan]

So you put up a sign that offends your customers and then complain when they don't want to do business with you

They had already done business with them and now the customers want to dishonor the agreement.

They are not done until the service is paid for and the product delivered

The customer wisely decided to take their business elsewhere

No- doesn't work that way.

If the customer ordered the ring, there is a contract and the customer is obligated to pay for the product that they ordered.

This is no different from the baker refusing to sell the cake violating the law- customers cannot violate the law either.

If this story is even true- the customers who refuse to pay for the ring that they ordered because of what a sign says on the wall, are just as guilty of breaking the law as the baker who refused to sell a cake to a gay couple.

The funny part is that the homophobes that are so outraged by this don't recognize that the law doesn't allow Customers to break a contract because of their personal beliefs, any more than the law allows a business to refuse to sell its product to customers because of the owners personal beliefs.

In this case the business owner willingly returned the money, so no government coercion was needed. And considering that even if there was a contract, most pro SSM people are just fine and dandy with it being only a 1 way street, i.e. the protected class gets all the protections, and screw anyone else.

 

[Syriusly]

So you put up a sign that offends your customers and then complain when they don't want to do business with you

They had already done business with them and now the customers want to dishonor the agreement.

They are not done until the service is paid for and the product delivered

The customer wisely decided to take their business elsewhere

No- doesn't work that way.

If the customer ordered the ring, there is a contract and the customer is obligated to pay for the product that they ordered.

This is no different from the baker refusing to sell the cake violating the law- customers cannot violate the law either.

If this story is even true- the customers who refuse to pay for the ring that they ordered because of what a sign says on the wall, are just as guilty of breaking the law as the baker who refused to sell a cake to a gay couple.

The funny part is that the homophobes that are so outraged by this don't recognize that the law doesn't allow Customers to break a contract because of their personal beliefs, any more than the law allows a business to refuse to sell its product to customers because of the owners personal beliefs.

In this case the business owner willingly returned the money, so no government coercion was needed. And considering that even if there was a contract, most pro SSM people are just fine and dandy with it being only a 1 way street, i.e. the protected class gets all the protections, and screw anyone else.

And considering most anti-SSM people are just fine and dandy with it being only a 1 way street- the protected class(Christians) gets all of the protections from the law- and should also be able to discriminate against anyone that they want to.

The gay couple that refused to pay were just as wrong as the baker who refused to sell the cake.

 

[candycorn]

Nor a right to remain in business

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

Nothing, and both should be legal.....a Nation of Islam bakery should be able to also refuse to serve white people.....if it is your business it is your property and you should be able to do with it what you want.....if you discriminate against one or more groups your business will suffer...and that is on you...but it is your right to run your business the way you want....

And you guys really think that the only thing standing between you and getting the votes of minorities in elections is marketing?

 

[2aguy]

Actually that is more of a right than to be served, as a person has a right to make a living.

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

Nothing, and both should be legal.....a Nation of Islam bakery should be able to also refuse to serve white people.....if it is your business it is your property and you should be able to do with it what you want.....if you discriminate against one or more groups your business will suffer...and that is on you...but it is your right to run your business the way you want....

And you guys really think that the only thing standing between you and getting the votes of minorities in elections is marketing?

You lefties don't like freedom do you......you like to control other people....

 

[martybegan]

So you put up a sign that offends your customers and then complain when they don't want to do business with you

They had already done business with them and now the customers want to dishonor the agreement.

They are not done until the service is paid for and the product delivered

The customer wisely decided to take their business elsewhere

No- doesn't work that way.

If the customer ordered the ring, there is a contract and the customer is obligated to pay for the product that they ordered.

This is no different from the baker refusing to sell the cake violating the law- customers cannot violate the law either.

If this story is even true- the customers who refuse to pay for the ring that they ordered because of what a sign says on the wall, are just as guilty of breaking the law as the baker who refused to sell a cake to a gay couple.

The funny part is that the homophobes that are so outraged by this don't recognize that the law doesn't allow Customers to break a contract because of their personal beliefs, any more than the law allows a business to refuse to sell its product to customers because of the owners personal beliefs.

In this case the business owner willingly returned the money, so no government coercion was needed. And considering that even if there was a contract, most pro SSM people are just fine and dandy with it being only a 1 way street, i.e. the protected class gets all the protections, and screw anyone else.

And considering most anti-SSM people are just fine and dandy with it being only a 1 way street- the protected class(Christians) gets all of the protections from the law- and should also be able to discriminate against anyone that they want to.

The gay couple that refused to pay were just as wrong as the baker who refused to sell the cake.

Wrong.Nothing prevents the gay couple from finding another baker and going on with their lives. In this case both parties agreed to terminate the contract willingly. I only have an issue when government gets involved.

 

[candycorn]

Of course you have a right to make a living. But that includes following the rules of your community. Those rules include building codes, fire codes, labor laws and yes.......public accommodation

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

Nothing, and both should be legal.....a Nation of Islam bakery should be able to also refuse to serve white people.....if it is your business it is your property and you should be able to do with it what you want.....if you discriminate against one or more groups your business will suffer...and that is on you...but it is your right to run your business the way you want....

And you guys really think that the only thing standing between you and getting the votes of minorities in elections is marketing?

You lefties don't like freedom do you......you like to control other people....

We like to stop you from discriminating against others when you open a public business....you betcha.

 

[Syriusly]

They had already done business with them and now the customers want to dishonor the agreement.

They are not done until the service is paid for and the product delivered

The customer wisely decided to take their business elsewhere

No- doesn't work that way.

If the customer ordered the ring, there is a contract and the customer is obligated to pay for the product that they ordered.

This is no different from the baker refusing to sell the cake violating the law- customers cannot violate the law either.

If this story is even true- the customers who refuse to pay for the ring that they ordered because of what a sign says on the wall, are just as guilty of breaking the law as the baker who refused to sell a cake to a gay couple.

The funny part is that the homophobes that are so outraged by this don't recognize that the law doesn't allow Customers to break a contract because of their personal beliefs, any more than the law allows a business to refuse to sell its product to customers because of the owners personal beliefs.

In this case the business owner willingly returned the money, so no government coercion was needed. And considering that even if there was a contract, most pro SSM people are just fine and dandy with it being only a 1 way street, i.e. the protected class gets all the protections, and screw anyone else.

And considering most anti-SSM people are just fine and dandy with it being only a 1 way street- the protected class(Christians) gets all of the protections from the law- and should also be able to discriminate against anyone that they want to.

The gay couple that refused to pay were just as wrong as the baker who refused to sell the cake.

Wrong.Nothing prevents the gay couple from finding another baker and going on with their lives. In this case both parties agreed to terminate the contract willingly. I only have an issue when government gets involved.

Oh I agree that the parties agreeing to terminate the contract willingly- i.e. the jeweler agreeing to terminate the contract after the couple asked for it- was perfectly acceptable.

But the OP said that the couple refused to pay for the ring- and if that had been the end of the story, they would have been just as wrong as the baker who refused to sell the cake.

In this case- legally- only the baker broke the law.

 

[martybegan]

So again, "bake the cake you peasant"

And BC, LL's FC's have a tangible benefit to all. When you force a baker out of business for a non essential transaction, the only benefit it to people like you who can't stand other who think differently than them.

Again, what is the difference between refusing to serve a gay person and refusing to serve a black person?

Nothing, and both should be legal.....a Nation of Islam bakery should be able to also refuse to serve white people.....if it is your business it is your property and you should be able to do with it what you want.....if you discriminate against one or more groups your business will suffer...and that is on you...but it is your right to run your business the way you want....

And you guys really think that the only thing standing between you and getting the votes of minorities in elections is marketing?

You lefties don't like freedom do you......you like to control other people....

We like to stop you from discriminating against others when you open a public business....you betcha.

No, you want them to not discriminate against people you like, I'm sure if someone started flipping off evangelical Christians, or Hindus you would be cheering them on.

 

[martybegan]

They are not done until the service is paid for and the product delivered

The customer wisely decided to take their business elsewhere

No- doesn't work that way.

If the customer ordered the ring, there is a contract and the customer is obligated to pay for the product that they ordered.

This is no different from the baker refusing to sell the cake violating the law- customers cannot violate the law either.

If this story is even true- the customers who refuse to pay for the ring that they ordered because of what a sign says on the wall, are just as guilty of breaking the law as the baker who refused to sell a cake to a gay couple.

The funny part is that the homophobes that are so outraged by this don't recognize that the law doesn't allow Customers to break a contract because of their personal beliefs, any more than the law allows a business to refuse to sell its product to customers because of the owners personal beliefs.

In this case the business owner willingly returned the money, so no government coercion was needed. And considering that even if there was a contract, most pro SSM people are just fine and dandy with it being only a 1 way street, i.e. the protected class gets all the protections, and screw anyone else.

And considering most anti-SSM people are just fine and dandy with it being only a 1 way street- the protected class(Christians) gets all of the protections from the law- and should also be able to discriminate against anyone that they want to.

The gay couple that refused to pay were just as wrong as the baker who refused to sell the cake.

Wrong.Nothing prevents the gay couple from finding another baker and going on with their lives. In this case both parties agreed to terminate the contract willingly. I only have an issue when government gets involved.

Oh I agree that the parties agreeing to terminate the contract willingly- i.e. the jeweler agreeing to terminate the contract after the couple asked for it- was perfectly acceptable.

But the OP said that the couple refused to pay for the ring- and if that had been the end of the story, they would have been just as wrong as the baker who refused to sell the cake.

In this case- legally- only the baker broke the law.

A stupid law, but yes.

 

[rightwinger]

How is business serving all people regardless of their individual hatred and biases wrongheaded and petty?

Is a business unwilling to serve a severely retarded person wrongheaded and petty?
Even if they find him icky?

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary. The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Seems it did require a substantial rewrite of the marriage contract in many states.

No, because it was still one man, one woman. It just required removing race form the equation, which was only added later on. Changing from one man and one woman to anything else is a major re-write.

I believe that if you polled many Americans and asked if they had a choice of banning interracial marriage or gay marriage, they would choose interracial

 

[martybegan]

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary. The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Seems it did require a substantial rewrite of the marriage contract in many states.

No, because it was still one man, one woman. It just required removing race form the equation, which was only added later on. Changing from one man and one woman to anything else is a major re-write.

I believe that if you polled many Americans and asked if they had a choice of banning interracial marriage or gay marriage, they would choose interracial

I doubt it. And polling is useless for questions like this because its all in how you ask the question. Ask "do you think businesses should be able to refuse service to same sex couples" and you get one percentage, ask "Should businesses be punished if they refuse to provide services at a same sex wedding" and you would get another.

 

[candycorn]

So far there hasn't been a solid case where someone was refused service walking into a store and buying something, what has been refused is 1) providing a custom service) and 2) using property for a gay wedding (some case in NY I think). Some people just don't want to be associated with something they find amoral, and government shouldn't force them to without some compelling economic reason, not because someone's feewings are hurt.

Echoes from the 60's....or the 2011 in Missisippi:

Poll 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage - The Wire

Again, mixed race marriages and same sex marriages are not even remotely the same, despite your efforts to the contrary. The courts overturning miscegenation laws did not require a fundamental re-write of the marriage contract.

Seems it did require a substantial rewrite of the marriage contract in many states.

No, because it was still one man, one woman. It just required removing race form the equation, which was only added later on. Changing from one man and one woman to anything else is a major re-write.

I believe that if you polled many Americans and asked if they had a choice of banning interracial marriage or gay marriage, they would choose interracial

Basically conservatives want to regulate whom you fall in love with...it's that simple and any deviation from what is considered the "norm", must be destroyed. I'd have more respect for them if they'd just come out and state it instead of screaming "state's rights" any time one of "God's children" falls outside of the norm...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Basically conservatives want to regulate whom you fall in love with...

ROFL!

Now how precious is THAT? Addle-minded nonsense, being advanced as reason.

Sexual normality is established by the human physiological standard.

You need to pretend that that immutable fact doesn't exist, as a means to justify deviant behavior.

What this establishes is another fact.

And that fact is that the demand that reality doesn't exist is a presentation of mental disorder; specifically, that mental disorder is known as DELUSION.

 

[candycorn]

Basically conservatives want to regulate whom you fall in love with...

ROFL!

Now how precious is THAT? Addle-minded nonsense, being advanced as reason.

Sexual normality is established by the human physiological standard.

You need to pretend that that immutable fact doesn't exist, as a means to justify deviant behavior.

What this establishes is another fact.

And that fact is that the demand that reality doesn't exist is a presentation of mental disorder; specifically, that mental disorder is known as DELUSION.

And of course, you're the one who determines what is deviant and not...right? Sounds like a conservative ideal..."WE" (whomever that is) will decide what is acceptable and not and if you step outside of that...you're not considered normal, you'll be deprived of rights that are granted freely to every other American....

Is that pretty much it?

 

[JoeMoma]

No moron, they already had the rings made, had spent the money to make them...then they noticed the sign...and took offense.......I heard the interview with the woman who was involved....she is a moron....

And the couple decided they did not want to do business with an establishment that openly advertised they oppose their marriage

Free enterprise at its finest

Breech of contract and possible theft of services: the couple will end up paying much more money.

Could be
So sue them

They will claim that the business breached the contract by its actions. I imagine they paid some type of deposit which the business won't return. They just refuse to pay any more to a business that they find offensive

So the jeweler is guilty of ThoughtCrime?

He provided the service as per the law. He put away his personal beliefs as you clowns keep asking people to do. Its clear you don't want tolerance, you want blinding acceptance.

You put up a sign that offends your customers...you lose customers

The free market at its finest

If a business can be forced to serve customers they don't like, shouldn't customers also be forced to buy from a business they don't like? I know this is a silly question except it shows the hyprocisy of the public accomidation laws.

 

[Katzndogz]

Basically conservatives want to regulate whom you fall in love with...

ROFL!

Now how precious is THAT? Addle-minded nonsense, being advanced as reason.

Sexual normality is established by the human physiological standard.

You need to pretend that that immutable fact doesn't exist, as a means to justify deviant behavior.

What this establishes is another fact.

And that fact is that the demand that reality doesn't exist is a presentation of mental disorder; specifically, that mental disorder is known as DELUSION.

And of course, you're the one who determines what is deviant and not...right? Sounds like a conservative ideal..."WE" (whomever that is) will decide what is acceptable and not and if you step outside of that...you're not considered normal, you'll be deprived of rights that are granted freely to every other American....

Is that pretty much it?

That's pretty much it. That's why you can't marry your golden retriever, your toaster or your neighbor's corpse. Of course that will change. Love conquers all. Even the most vile of depravities will be the new normal.

That's not really at issue. The new fight for "rights" is the approval fight. The vendor not only must provide the service, but indicate that the event meets with their personal approval and makes them personally joyful. A jeweler who makes the order as specified must still go the extra step and deny all support for traditional marriage as well.

A baker who makes the wedding cake exactly as ordered, beautiful and delicious but tells the happy couple that it's done under duress is right or wrong? You get your cake but you are perverts that will burn in hell forever. Is the baker wrong to complain about his bondage, or must he also be happy about it?

 

[2aguy]

And the couple decided they did not want to do business with an establishment that openly advertised they oppose their marriage

Free enterprise at its finest

Breech of contract and possible theft of services: the couple will end up paying much more money.

Could be
So sue them

They will claim that the business breached the contract by its actions. I imagine they paid some type of deposit which the business won't return. They just refuse to pay any more to a business that they find offensive

So the jeweler is guilty of ThoughtCrime?

He provided the service as per the law. He put away his personal beliefs as you clowns keep asking people to do. Its clear you don't want tolerance, you want blinding acceptance.

You put up a sign that offends your customers...you lose customers

The free market at its finest

If a business can be forced to serve customers they don't like, shouldn't customers also be forced to buy from a business they don't like? I know this is a silly question except it shows the hyprocisy of the public accomidation laws.

It isn't silly, it will be the next step. Imagine having to file paperwork on why you chose the contracter, the plumber or the electrician to prove you didn't use whatever qualifier the P.C. crowd decides needs to be shown when you hire them......we can't have you not hiring a plumber because of race, or sexual orientation...right?