wasnt there a movie with john wayne where they had a black guy play his brother

But it does have to do with legislating thought.

If I deny service...is that ACTION by itself illegal?  No.  If my THOUGHT for why I deny service is because they are gay it is, however, illegal.  It is absolutely legislating thoughts. 

You're saying that they're allowed to think it but not conduct themselves according to their beliefs. Apply that concept to religion and you've violated someone's rights.   You and I might scoff at the person but its their beliefs and it is incredibly arrogant to think that we should be allowed to tell them how to operate their privately owned and operated business that they built.

And yes I'm aware of those laws, it doesn't mean I agree with their methods.  I do agree philisophically with what their trying to achieve, but I think denying liberty to create liberty is a self-defeating concept.  In fact where you would call them "advanced" I would call them ridiculously naive and unweildy.  Naive because it is beyond easy to avoid the issue by simply lying about your reasoning for denying service.  Unweildy because it is a blunt social instrument trying to enact precise and fine changes. 

I would love for people to get along and just mind their own business, but I think it is incredibly arrogant to even think we should have the right to force someone to serve a purpose that goes against their beliefs.  Keep in mind that the article isn't just talking about people denying service because their gay, they're denying service because they want them to work on a gay wedding.  Can a black caterer deny service to the KKK?  Can a Jewish owned hotel deny service to a skinhead leadership conference (do they even have those?)? 

Put simply I see no difference in telling people they can't act according to their beliefs versus telling them they can't believe something.  Actions are what truly matter and by telling someone to perform a service that is an affront to their beliefs or go to jail you've truly crossed out of the "tolerance for all" realm and into the realm of the totalitarian "do it or else!".

The thing is if you can't get a cake from Bob's Cakes nobodies rights are actually violated...you are inconvenianced absolutely and Bob is a real asshole but I'd rather not give him my business anyways (in fact I would deliberately boycott Bob's store).  But the bottom line is you can always go to Suzie's Cakes and have the service performed there.  Even then nobody has a right to buy cake.

Which brings me to the next bit which is that I am fine with the discrimination laws in regards to critical services such as police, fire, medical, and government services.  And the reason goes back to the last paragraph...because those who do not wish to serve some group will know right up front that they may have to by accepting the job....if they don't want to they can find another profession.  In short they are choosing to put themselves in the position where they may have to violate their beliefs...it is there choice that puts them there...again their choice.

When it comes right down to it you're literally saying "tolerate these people....or else".....as good as this may sound in theory (ie when you sugarcoat it) and as well-intentioned as it is philisophically (and I think it is well intentioned), it flies in the face of the concept of liberty.  I'm sorry you don't (and almost certainly won't) see it, but it absolutely and unnecessarily does.

I seriously hope this is true

@Sqrl. So you essentially believe in removing half of the civil rights that were gained during the 1960's? What you're talking about is essentially re-legalising segregation...

We really do sit at very very different ends of the political spectrum at times.

I just realized the total extent of this idea.

Until now, I just thought it was disgusting to compare your religious-political motivated idea with the holocaust, but this is even more disgusting:

They not only compare themselves to haunted Jews in the 3rd Reich, no you even use their suffering to do the same thing the Nazis did and haunt another minority down. Just that it's this time not "Don't buy at Jewish shops" and "Jews are not welcome", it's now "Gays are not welcome at our shops". I'm speechless.

I think a lot of fundamentalist Christians think that by not allowing other types of marriages they are somehow making up for all the pre-marital sex, adultry, and divorces that is so common with modern marriage. 

I'm tempted to argue marriage isnt that important anymore.  Whats the difference between living with someone and having a baby with them AND marrying someone, having a baby, and having a full pre-nuptial agreement?

Um, TC, ur doin it wrong. Your knowledge of the Holocaust is middling at best, but then, it was a bad attempt at a Godwin anyway.

Here's a hint: the anti-Semitism of the Holocaust was considered an unusual type at its time, because the Nazis stressed a basis for it in ethnicity, not religion. Hitler even went so far as to call religion-based anti-Semitism "misguided," which won him few friends in anti-Semitic circles at the time (not that this bothered him overmuch; being a mad dictator and all, he just manufactured his own friends). The end result is that trying to draw a parallel here for attempts to punish belief don't work.

If you're going to Godwin, then for crying out loud, do it properly and draw parallels to groups that were actually targeted for their beliefs. For example, red or purple triangles (used for Communists and Jehovah's Witnesses, respectively) would have been more accurate. They would also have been less well-known, which I suspect would have precluded you from using these even if you had known about them, which I doubt you did, simply because you wouldn't be able to piss off as many people.

Every individual should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and everyone has the right to use their freedom of speech to speak out against people when they believe they have been wronged. Over time the consequences from people's actions will result in society being reasonably fair to everyone involved. The act of trying to get people to self identify is simply trying to shame people into conformity and is not acceptable, any more than it would be acceptable to say that all gay people must identify their sexual preference at all times.

Now, there is a photographer I know who doesn't take photos of marriages between two men because he believes the photos are generally boring ... he is personally gay but thinks that the variety in color and form from a traditional marriage is far more visually interesting than a bunch of guys in suits. Should he have to justify his decision that isn't hurting business, or be forced to take jobs he doesn't want in place of jobs he does want, because someone has hurt feelings?

1. Yes everyone is allowed to do business with however he likes to. If this photographer doesn't want to do this kind of photos, he's free to do so.

2. But if a shop-owner shows people that they are unwanted because of their beliefs, their race or the sexual orientation, that's wrong. Nobody should be allowed to deny business in general just for political motivated reasons.

EDIT: Had to re-read your post. I agree with most of it, but just to clearify it: Is that in short what you're talking about?

Woah buddy. This isn't my idea. I'm just explaining the OP.

And that's not the case at all. It's demonizing those who are against gay marriage. Most people who are against do not keep out Gays of their business, shops, etc.