No. And a Christian baker shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Let me put it this way: if a homosexual couple asks for a wedding cake from a Christian baker, and the baker refuses, then I'm OK with it, because preparing the cake would endorse/condone something that violates the baker's religious beliefs. But if the homosexual couple in question simply asks for a dozen donuts and the baker refuses, then that would clearly be discrimination. Providing donuts, cookies, etc. for an LGBT couple is different from baking a wedding cake for them, because one violated the baker's religious beliefs, and the other does not.
Simply put: if the requested service violates a specific tenet of the merchant's religious beliefs, then they should be allowed to refuse. But if it's a simple service like a dozen donuts, cookies, etc., or a simple meal, or something of that sort, then they should not be allowed to discriminate.
No, it can't be based on religion. That's a terrible place to draw the line.
I mean, what qualifies as "religious reasons?" If I claim to believe in a religion called "Buttonism" and it was "against my religious beliefs to serve people who didn't wear a shirt with buttons," could I do that, in your world? And if not, is that not government discriminating (something I, and the Constitution, very much oppose) against Buttonism?
I know your position is that of many conservatives today (that government forcing people to not discriminate is alright, unless it's a--
horror of horrors--same-sex wedding), but I think that that position is inconsistent in only including some forms of discrimination. In a way, it's discrimination by government, which is obviously wrong and, as I said before, unconstitutional.
Services should not be required to be rendered unto anyone.
Translation: business owners should be allowed to ban blacks from their businesses.
Nice try, but I would argue that any business that provides a service to people is by definition public, and therefore can be regulated by the government. It doesn't have to be government owned for the government to pass laws regarding their conduct.
Interesting argument, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The idea that government has control over anything that is vaguely "public" might be the most statist thing I've ever heard (even including support for the draft, death penalty, etc.).