Sure...but in my business, I have no choice. I provide services for any law-abiding, tax-paying citizen tho many of them I would rather have nothing to do with for various reasons. It's business. Perhaps you are unaware of that being a PA requirement.
Do they all up and out say they don't like gay people? do they make you attend a celebration of not liking gay people?
It might, at first glance, to be merely semantic, but you keep saying wedding vendors are forced to "attend" same sex weddings. There is a difference between 'attending' a wedding and 'working' a wedding. The vendors are just plying their trade. They are not required, nor requested to approve of the happy couple.
Could a restaurantuer refuse service to a walki in four top of homosexuals? I wonder what that restaurantuer's attitude might be on a slow Tuesday night? But the maitre d does not sidle up to the table, the sommelier doesn't bring an extra glass and make a toast.
And wedding vendors, with the exception of the waiters and bartenders and musical entertainment should be invisible. It's the bride's day, not the day for a vendor to grant his empremator even on the occasion.
A restaurant should be able to do so, and deal with the repercussions. What is more likely though is the owner wouldn't even notice it and have a chance to have a choice of asking them not to dine. Dining is dining, unless you are celebrating something that the owner does not want celebrated in his venue. Why can a hall deny a Klan meeting but not a gay wedding?
Forcing someone to provide a service they do not want to provide, or giving them the choice of going out of business is about as reprehensible as a person can get. that you wear the mantle of justice for some strange reason while advocating it is disturbing in and of itself.
The Klan is a criminal enterprise. Are homosexuals criminal by merely being a homosexual?
The New Mexico Supreme Court already addressed this hypothetical in their ruling which ruled against the photographer...and the SCOTUS did not take up, leaving the lower court ruling as the final ruling:
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.
However, adoption of Elane Photography’s argument would allow a photographer who was a Klan member to refuse to photograph an African-American customer’s wedding, graduation, newborn child, or other event if the photographer felt that the photographs would cast African-Americans in a positive light or be interpreted as the photographer’s endorsement of African-Americans. A holding that the First Amendment mandates an exception to public accommodations laws for commercial photographers would license commercial photographers to freely discriminate against any protected class on the basis that the photographer was only exercising his or her right not to express a viewpoint with which he or she disagrees. Such a holding would undermine all of the protections provided by antidiscrimination laws.
