He was using the irony for humor, which is why the christians thought they were being mocked. They weren't incorrect, but they were also being showed for being either self-loathing or hypocrites.

Laws go well beyond prevention of force. some services are much more important than others, where do you draw the line. Then again I saw your post on property views.

you're of te view that people should have much more freedoms to do as they see fit, let the market work things out. I'm of the philosophy some things shoudl be required by law that shouln't even need to be discussed. both have some merrits and flaws and both have a swinging pendulum of societies current values vs the values of some individuals that don't line up and have some conflict.

I'm of the view that if there must be a government its existence is only justified by its ability to prevent force. Things get too convoluted otherwise. The end result of an instrumental government (used to rule over other people) is two (or more) groups of people divided in a country battling it out for control over said government. Basically that is what we see today in the American political landscape. Hence why I specified "laws in a liberal society." 

1. That hardly stops places from favoring christianity over other religions with various laws, and recognition matters to many for tax statuses as no profits or not.
2. good, though I know you'd want a law that could let anyone refuse service to anyone or group, hopefully you'd at least require it to be posted 3. leaving the system so you can have full control over your clientel is hardly the same as leaving a comunitty because people there won't sever you based on sexual orientation. one is finding the legal way to do thing (avoiding legal procedures but not being able to hide liabilities behind a company), the other is leaving because of not getting servises.

There is a large scale devision, not because of politics, but through politics. It's fueled by the LBGT movement demanding equal rights. It will only become non political after it becomes more of a non issue.

I'd be curious how such a government would work. but that should have it's own toppic.

It has nothing to do with what is harsher on the bigots. It has to do with protecting the rights of minorities in a liberal society.

If Chick Fil A at some point decided to refuse service to gays and there was no law preventing them from doing so, they would not fold. There would be a mass of people that would support the resturaunt out of principle. The same goes with minorities.

This is why principles that guide one's action must be universal principles, like the categorical imperative. Otherwise there will be cases where your principles cannot apply, so you must abandon them, which defeats the purpose of having principles if you abandon them at the drop of a hat.

Preference is not a choice but even if it was, anyone against homosexuality is automaticaly wrong.

I mentioned it as preference because it's no different than liking certain foods/clothes/games... Can't you see how terrible it is to discriminate against a preference that isn't your business?

There are no laws in many states preventing Chic Fil A from not providing service to gay people, yet they still provide services to gay people in those states. Why? Because they know if they didn't they'd lose a lot of revenue and their competitors would gain market power. A company doesn't have to fold for its owner/owners to be hurt by poor choices. Large companies like Chic Fil A aren't in the business of losing customers or forcing people from buying their food. They are in the business to make money and gain market power. Discrimination was only so debilitating in the southern states because the southern states forced everyone to do it, making it cheaper and less harmful for the people who wanted to do it and much more harmful for those who didn't want to do it.

Good just as gay people have the right to get married, people have the right to have their own opinions

Cool story. I'm happy with this regulation It's only natural that after years of brutal assault of the LGBT community there had to be a reaction. I approve!