The vendor, who feels his rights to free expression are being violated and he is having to commit actions against his will.
The potential customer, who feels that he has the right to be served by any who he so demands.
Allow me to illustrate: In a hardware store, there are no grounds for service to be refused on account of "gender orientation" because creative service is not being offered. One's morals do not come into play in such a situation. However, in the case of a baker, a florist or any of the other situations that are contemporary, creative works ARE being used. In the case of the baker (http://www.adfmedia.org/news/prdetail/8700), he was being asked to use his creativity to do something that amounted to endorsement. Another important thing to consider is the amount of "harm" done to each party. For the customer, the "harm" is negligible. That person can just find another vendor. However, in the case of the vendor, the situation is not so easy. He/she is being asked to violate his conscience. For crying out loud, we allow all sorts of crazy stuff on the grounds of religious concerns. Why not also expand "inclusiveness" to include the Christians and other proponents of Traditional Marriage? Or are transgenders, etc. the only people who deserve protection under the law?
A business is something someone puts a lot of themselves into, and is normally personally owned. It is their property. If they make a decision to turn away a paying customer, so be it. They should be allowed to let people use their property and turn them away, and if people don't like their decision, vote with your wallet.
- No one has voted yet. Be the first!