New Segregation seems a bit sensationalist.

You do realize that this was the case in the UK up until 2007 right?

All and all, the law is just... totally pointless, because Arisona wasn't one of the states where you couldn't refuse service to gay people in the first place.   Buisnesses have the right to refuse service in most states, and most countries, to anybody except on the basis of Race, Nationality or Disability.

The US also has age on it's list.

Some US states and other countries have gay... but far less countries then you would think.

It just rarely happens because... people like money.

Pointless and terrible, but not really anything beyond that.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this. I feel business owners should be able to deny service whomever they want.

If that business is not interested in that customer, another business will gladly take the customer.

This is another problem the free market can solve.

Im pretty sure a bakery recently got closed in the US because they refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding

Should gays wear star shaped badges so business owners can recognize them?

Surely the whole point of a business is to just make money. Being picky over your customers is just limiting that and such a law goes dangerously close to bring back segregation. Segregation belongs in the 20th not 21st century. Your example are on religious cases but what if a business refuses to trade or do a service for blacks, muslims or whoever because of conflicting believes. It's there choice but don't you see a problem with that?

I though religion had no place in the workplace and that the profit motive was enough to overlook our differences, maybe I was wrong. And to be honest, I think it's a pointless and stupid law. 

On that note I may as well refuse to serve anyone who practices a religion (i'm agnostic myself). I would lose out on loads of profits but nevermind they don't agree with me so fuck em! That's just how stupid this law is. 

Sure, LGBT is a tiny amount of the population (especially compared to those who practice any religion) but it's still a small loss of business to these idiots but oh well. In a recession especially, businessmen and women surely need as much money as they can get to stay afloat. Discrimination shouldn't even be a though.

if you dont wont to do business with them, thats your prerogative. Thats not "how stupid the law is". thats how stupid you are for not knowing how to do business. But as a business owner you should be able to do business with whom you choose, and not be forced to do labor against your will (which is slavery). if you wont to business with those people, other businesses will. And and if enough customers decide youre bad to do business with, then they will continue to go to your competeters, and you will go out of business. The market, at work!

also you whole point is quite hilarious in its contridictions, from previously stated opinions by you in other threads. Like your dsidain of businesses (especially 'corporations" which our just businesses that incorporated) making large profit, but here your argument against the law, is it will lose business money.

If you can't conduct business in a non-discriminatory way, then you cannot conduct business. It's fairly straightforward. You're baking a cake, it's not like you're officiating the wedding or something.

Ideally, though, that Christian baker should have stated their distaste for it and recommended a competitor who wouldn't mind. However, the customer being always right (like the lady at work yesterday who insisted she couldn't go to another gas station to cash her lottery ticket even though i only barely had the money in the drawer to cover it, and told her so), if they insist on getting the service you'd rather not give from you, then you are bound to do it if they are a legally protected class, and you *should* do it on a matter of the principle of being a good businessperson.

The more interesting one is that an interpretation of this law could open up for discrimination in other regards, like if a Muslim waiter at a general-purpose restaurant begins refusing to even handle anything with pork in the ingredients, and demanded he can still keep the job. I wonder what the advocates of the law would say in that case?

That's the other weird bit about this law. How do you know? Could i (being in PA, not in Arizona), just randomly tell effeminate looking men or butch-looking women to go to another counter because i have moral issues with serving you?

The law seems a lot sloppier than the one attempted in Kansas.