I think by the time it is okay to be removed society might not even bother because at that stage no one will care.  On time frame I'd say we're a good 50-100 years away from that mind set being possible.  Again, we are only 50 years removed in the US from segregation so we have made tremendous progress.

Actually, if one just writes "a standard of living", it doesn't mean anything at all. However, even if he had written "a basic standard of living", it would have had nothing to do with communism.

true he didn't define a standard

i think people should have the right to discriminate over race,sex,religion,etc

As much as I'm glad about the conclusion, I feel I need to correct a misconception, here.

It's not about applying force, it's about removing weight. The system is tilted in favour of some people because of weights that are keeping the other people down. The laws that are put in place to deal with it aren't about applying a counter-force, they're about removing those weights.

And they do it in a completely even way. The weights are removed from everyone, it's just that those with more weight will naturally have more weight taken away.

Laws regarding discrimination are quite clear on being even-handed. You can't discriminate on the basis of religion. It doesn't specify religions that are protected - they all are, and so is absence of religion. You can't discriminate on the basis of sexuality - a restaurant is just as unable to refuse service to straight people as they are to gay people. You can't discriminate on the basis of gender - applies for both males and females (and "other", for that matter).

The only reason it seems to benefit some more than others is that some have more discriminatory weight holding them down than others do. And should things swing the other way, and those who were the beneficiaries of less weight become more weighted down than others, the same laws will protect them more.

Note that not all laws intended to deal with discrimination use this approach. Some do, indeed, try to apply an external force. These tend to be less effective, because it's not trivial to change the laws as the situation changes. Quotas and "positive discrimination" tend to only further build up resentments, and in the meantime generally mean that less-qualified people are put into roles. It looks good on statistical charts, but it isn't sustainable.

When it comes to the more specific balance of "freedom of business", the key here is that you can ban acts, but you can't refuse service because of who a person is (within certain limitations - this is why we specify protected classes, to ensure that appropriate protections apply).

You can refuse service to people who show, let's call it "gay intimacy", in your restaurant (although it's safer to just blanket-ban "intimacy" - AKA kissing - because you might still be breaking discrimination laws otherwise, depending on the specifics), but you can't refuse to serve a person because they're gay. You can refuse to bake a cake with a swastika on it, but you can't refuse to bake a cake for someone because they're a nazi. You can refuse to make halal hotdogs, but you can't refuse to sell your normal hotdogs to muslims.

And when it comes down to it, if you're caterer and a gay couple asks you to cater their wedding, while you can't refuse them on the basis of them being gay, you can explain your discomfort to them, politely, and ask that they consider alternatives (although you'd still do it if they insisted). Most gay people wouldn't want someone anti-gay to be forced to cater their wedding, both because they wouldn't want to reinforce the anti-gay sentiment, and because the service probably wouldn't be as good as it should be. It's not discrimination to politely express your reservations.

In the meantime, you must understand that you don't run your business in isolation. Yes, it's a private business, but you are still serving the public, and that means that you are under public influence. Kind of like how if you live in a town, you are subject to its ordinances, even when you're on private property within that town. Kind of like how if you live in a state, you are subject to its laws, even when you're on private property within that state. The same reasoning applies. And if you can't handle catering events you're not comfortable with, then don't be a caterer. If you aren't comfortable serving people of <race/gender/sexuality/religion/etc>, then don't work at a restaurant. If you don't want to photograph a gay couple, don't be an events photographer.

Because discrimination is punishable by law?
There.

It's really the stupidness of these things. Yeah, for everyone who says equality. There's always gonna be the logic of "why can't I discriminate freely?" "Don't I have the right?" You do. But this opens up the ability to screw people over. For no real true reason. Someone would start abusing this right, in wrong and really dumb ways. Someone could easily say: "I won't serve anyone who's 7 feet tall. They're freaks to me."

They have that right, yes. Those that do this, look like total assholes. Most definitely. Because if religion is a valid reason. Than pretty much all reasons have to be valid. "But banning a tall person from a store is dumb." So is banning a gay couple, from my POV. Money is money. You have problems with someone. Complain about it to yourself and people that agree. Don't do it to said persons.

Actually, the idea that compromise always produces a better outcome is wrong. It's the Golden Mean Fallacy or Argument to Moderation. Sometimes, one side or the other has it 100% right.

What it's actually about is optimisation, and the question needs to be asked, what is "optimal"? It's certainly a topic for debate, but I usually view "the greater good" as a good starting point for it (as vague as it is, most people have at least some sense of its meaning).

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, should there have been a compromise with the Nazis? Should we have allowed them to kill some of the Jews on the basis of compromise? Or perhaps compromise and allow them to completely uproot all of them (and all of the others that they targetted) and ship them to the middle of nowhere? Clearly not. Which isn't to say that compromise is a bad thing, just that it's not always the solution.

The real problem isn't about the unwillingness to compromise, it's about the unwillingness to even compare notes and determine a common end goal (that is, the "optimum").

You're taking elements and making them a whole picture. Killing Jews was a bas element, but the Nazis were not 100% bad in every way. When looking at the big picture, there is always a balance to be struck. i.e We could have took some of the Nazi practices such as the auto bahn construction, Mercedes, VW, Addidas, Puma....Oh wait, we did.