LMAO. Preventing bigoted discrimination against customers based on sexual orientation is slavery now. Oh my sides...

I find it weird this is directed at me.

I'm always in favor of corporate speech.

Not really where I was coming from with that since I know where you stand on speech issues. But I mean, I'm sure the "KKKORPORERASHINZ RNT PPL" crowd are really tonguing Apple's taint this week.

As an aside, I find it funny that the Kochs are always singled out as the most nefarious and right-wing extremist Buyers Of Our Glorious Democracy when they (a) are only the 59th largest donors and (b) have spent a lot of money in favor of state recognition of gay marriage.

Nah, forcing someone to work for someone is.

Well if businesses cannot discriminate against customers for these reasons, then there's no reason why customers can discriminate against businesses for these reasons. The only reason people don't bring up the latter is because this is all political pandering in an election year and doesn't really have any substance. I would love to see a straight porn actor have to explain why he won't do gay porn because he discriminating against gays. After all, it's just business and there's no reason why you should bring your personal beliefs to work with you right?

It saddens me that i even have to say this, but inevitably people will take this as an anti-gay comment and i am in no way anti-gay. I support freedom for businesses and customers, and that it should be voluntary on both sides.

Actually no, it gives people the right to discriminate based upon religious belief.  Ergo, you could have Christian's refusing to serve Muslims, Muslims refusing to serve Christian's, Jews refusing to serve both etc...  so on and so forth. 

There are plenty of theocracies out there for Christian's to 'shelter' in, if they're feeling overly persecuted (ergo, confusing equality with the loss of overwhelming power).  Besides, you're making great gains in Africa, millions of people dying daily because having AIDs is better than using birth control, so sayeth the Church.  Praise Jeebus.

Yeah, this doesn't attack anyone's freedom, just like not allowing minorities to drink from 'White' water fountains wasn't an attack on Freedom.

What I find most frustrating about this whole argument is that it's being framed as freedom of religion rather than freedom of conscience, as if an atheist baker who finds homosexuality morally objectionable shouldn't have the same rights as a Christian one. Even the anti-SB 1062 crowd seems to, for now at least, concede that an actual church has the right to discriminate on this basis. They only object to a "public business" (as if it's not privately owned...) doing so. But it's very odd to me to grant the religious more rights than the irreligious, and it's equally odd to say that a tax exempt organization has fewer obligations and restrictions than one which pays taxes.

I suppose I should chalk that part up to the left's hostility to profit-turning and take comfort in the fact that the rest of it is all moot because it won't be much longer until churches are forced to perform gay weddings as well, so I needn't worry my pretty little head with trying to grasp the logic of it all.

Government mandated integration is just as much an attack on individual liberty as was government mandated segregation. Just because you feel like the government is taking the right side doesn't change the fact that it is a coercive action.

It doesn't matter whether it's a coercive action or not, it's in tune with the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence which this country is founded upon.  You're more than welcome to disagree, or object, but the law and SCOTUS will uphold these principles, whether States like it or not.

Actually, yes. It does matter when you're saying that it's not an attack on freedom.

I guess I missed the part of the Bill of Rights that said "all men are entitled to a cake from the bakery of their choice".