you don't like it, but the issue that divides us is we don't see rights change based on what side of the employee/employer relationship you fall under.
class warfare advocates like yourself have different rules...and those rules are what is causing these fights.
I guess we need to define what we're talking about. If it's about a general law against discrimination on the basis of race, etc. then the downside of them is, of course, that they will require people to serve others we all agree are unsavory, even arguably evil, and that's admittedly a 'bad thing.' But if that's the downside of ALL blacks and ALL Jews and ALL Hispanics and ALL gays having basic access on the same terms as all others to the market, then I'll take it and accept the downside.Can I make a black bakery bake me a klan kake?
Or a jewish person bake me a "german wwII gestapo" anniversery cake?
or what about a gay baker having to make an anti-gay church bake them a cake?
where does it end? and if it ends prematurely are we being as "tolerant" as we claim?
If you're asking will I entertain exceptions, of course. We already have written exceptions into the law as they apply to religious orgs. It's an unacceptable downside for a Catholic Church to have to hire a Muslim or atheist for an open Sunday School teacher slot, etc. So I'd be fine if we define additional exceptions for the (IMO) relatively trivial examples of a baker and a photographer, but maintain the general rule.
Otherwise, we have to allow any and all discrimination for any reason or no reason. Religious belief is a non-obstacle, IMO, or should be even if the law could actually reliably determine if a person is refusing to bake a cake for religious reason versus he just hates gays or blacks or jews. And it would apply to businesses who won't supply a black owned restaurant in town of any meat or produce, and so can effectively freeze them out of the market, or won't sell or rent them property.