Should it be illegal to refuse to provide a service to gay customers...

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

How's this for a scenario? Business cites adherence to "biblical scripture" condemning the dark skinned Sons of Hamm in Genesis, and other verses stating God created lands and homes for all of the different races to dwell in for their time, and accordingly refuses to bake a cake for an African-American, or mixed race marriage.

And before anyone says there's no comparison, those scriptures were (mis-)used a LOT by southern whites in support not just for slavery, but even Jim Crow barely half a century ago. Nor is the supposed biblical condemnation of homosexuality notably more prevalent in the Bible that the above-referenced verses.

Because separate but equal is okay for sex but not race.  We're allowed to have men's and women's restrooms but not black and white restrooms.  Thus, refusing to provide services for a wedding between people of the same sex is different than refusing to provide services for a wedding between people of different races (race is a social construct anyway).

However, let me be clear, a Christian restaurant or grocery store still can't refuse to sell food to gays, a Christian hardware store still can't refuse to sell bolts and screws to gays, and a Christian TV laundromat can't turn away gays wanting to wash their clothes there.  But a wedding ceremony is different.

Also, interracial marriage is in the Bible.  Moses' wife was black and IIRC God punishes Moses' mother for opposing their marriage.  Aaron also opposed their marriage but I don't remember if he was punished.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If someone should be compelled to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, must someone also be compelled to bake a cake for a polyamorous wedding?  How about we just agree that we can think certain behaviors are immoral without hating those that engage in them.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

How's this for a scenario? Business cites adherence to "biblical scripture" condemning the dark skinned Sons of Hamm in Genesis, and other verses stating God created lands and homes for all of the different races to dwell in for their time, and accordingly refuses to bake a cake for an African-American, or mixed race marriage.

And before anyone says there's no comparison, those scriptures were (mis-)used a LOT by southern whites in support not just for slavery, but even Jim Crow barely half a century ago. Nor is the supposed biblical condemnation of homosexuality notably more prevalent in the Bible that the above-referenced verses.

Because separate but equal is okay for sex but not race.  We're allowed to have men's and women's restrooms but not black and white restrooms.  Thus, refusing to provide services for a wedding between people of the same sex is different than refusing to provide services for a wedding between people of different races (race is a social construct anyway).

Awesome! I'm glad it didn't take much for you to admit that discrimination based on sexual orientation is ok but race is not You should inform the courts since this is a landmark verdict.

I actually said gender discrimination is sometimes okay.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I still haven't heard anyone on the Right address what gays are supposed to do if there are lots of bakeries in the area, but none of them will serve gays?

There probably aren't that many bakers who care enough to make a stand, but in some places there will be, and in some places Evangelical boycotts will start forcing the on-the-fence bakers to throw out the gays.

The idea that "oh no worries the free market will take care of those awful bigots" is true in some areas, but in other areas the opposite is true and the "free market" will shut down the pro-gay bakers.

Has any social conservative boycott campaign worked?

We're not going to boycott pro-gay bakeries.  Notice how business is overwhelmingly on one side when it comes to social issues?  If Evangelicals boycotted businesses that disagreed with them they'd have to only eat Chick Fil-A (which doesn't actually sound that bad, now that I think about it).  Religious conservatives decided, before I was born, to invest almost everything into politics and almost nothing into the media, business, education, or culture.  And we only have leverage with one political party anyway.  We're way less powerful than we appear.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I still haven't heard anyone on the Right address what gays are supposed to do if there are lots of bakeries in the area, but none of them will serve gays?

There probably aren't that many bakers who care enough to make a stand, but in some places there will be, and in some places Evangelical boycotts will start forcing the on-the-fence bakers to throw out the gays.

The idea that "oh no worries the free market will take care of those awful bigots" is true in some areas, but in other areas the opposite is true and the "free market" will shut down the pro-gay bakers.

Has any social conservative boycott campaign worked?

We're not going to boycott pro-gay bakeries.  Notice how business is overwhelmingly on one side when it comes to social issues?  If Evangelicals boycotted businesses that disagreed with them they'd have to only eat Chick Fil-A (which doesn't actually sound that bad, now that I think about it).  Religious conservatives decided, before I was born, to invest almost everything into politics and almost nothing into the media, business, education, or culture.  And we only have leverage with one political party anyway.  We're way less powerful than we appear.

NFL

By social conservative I mean against the sexual revolution, that's how I've always distinguished social liberalism and social conservatism at least.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I still haven't heard anyone on the Right address what gays are supposed to do if there are lots of bakeries in the area, but none of them will serve gays?

There probably aren't that many bakers who care enough to make a stand, but in some places there will be, and in some places Evangelical boycotts will start forcing the on-the-fence bakers to throw out the gays.

The idea that "oh no worries the free market will take care of those awful bigots" is true in some areas, but in other areas the opposite is true and the "free market" will shut down the pro-gay bakers.

Has any social conservative boycott campaign worked?

We're not going to boycott pro-gay bakeries.  Notice how business is overwhelmingly on one side when it comes to social issues?  If Evangelicals boycotted businesses that disagreed with them they'd have to only eat Chick Fil-A (which doesn't actually sound that bad, now that I think about it).  Religious conservatives decided, before I was born, to invest almost everything into politics and almost nothing into the media, business, education, or culture.  And we only have leverage with one political party anyway.  We're way less powerful than we appear.

NFL

By social conservative I mean against the sexual revolution, that's how I've always distinguished social liberalism and social conservatism at least.

That's because, despite claiming to be, only a small fraction of Americans (~maybe 10%) are truly against the sexual revolution in total. Conservative opposition relies on piecemeal partial rejections that can together build a coalition approaching a majority of voters. That's also part of why conservative social positions are almost never implemented.

True.  And in 30 years Conservatives will have made peace with today's social liberalism while opposing the next big thing.  They'll say "We support X, but Y is going to far" while social liberals will say "We support X and Y, and if you dare suggest Y might lead to Z, you're a bigot."  And then in a decade or two they'll announce their support for Z and conservatives will have made peace with Y.

It's important to distinguish between different types of social issues.  For instance, gun control and immigration are social issues in a sense, but they aren't related to abortion and same-sex marriage.  What makes the latter issues so unique is that they represent the struggle between the sexual revolution and Christianity, and the two forces are currently engaged in a duel to the death.  There are only two outcomes, the sexual revolution will continue to intensify until it destroys society, or it will eventually be reversed.

If you haven't already, read about Alfred Kinsey and his connection to Hugh Hefner and Harry Hay.  These three men are, IMO, responsible for social liberalism as we know it today.  I would encourage anyone who thinks what I just posted is insane to research these people.