Generally, I think that the submission rate to CMV my be cut in half if people got over their obsession with having nice, neat, rules perfectly applicable to every situation - the world's a messy place and sometimes we place an arbitrary limit on something for the sake of ease ("Why not make the speed limit 67 MPH?! 65 is arbitrary!") or, as in this case, it's meant to deal with a real problem as opposed to hypothetical ones (hence why there are laws meant to protect people who have historically faced incredible discrimination and there's nothing to protect red-haired people).

Most people would probably agree that in their personal life, no one should be penalised for "discrimination" (e.g. not choosing to befriend someone because they're ginger or what-have-you). However, when it comes to business, this sort of reasoning goes out the window.

Would you acknowledge that the effects of such discrimination are vastly different? Me preferring not to associate with gay people is one thing - me and a variety of other businesses completely avoiding serving them has a vastly different effect.

So why do you think that laws should treat two vastly different things in the same way?

I assume that this based loosely on the idea that "corporations aren't people",

No - it's because in America you live via commerce. You buy food at restaurants and grocery stores. You get lodging through rental and short term accommodations. You get money for these things by being a part of the workforce. These things are necessities. Having everyone say "Howdy neighbor!" isn't.

So it's not discrimination across the board, it's simply a list of pre-approved types of discrimination that the government tells you that you cannot do.

Because, contrary to the beliefs of some, the government really isn't in the business of legislating away problems that don't exist (unless there is an ulterior motive). There isn't an issue with red-haired people being unable to get jobs, travel, or just buy food.

But there's a very real history in this country of people being persecuted for the reasons currently delineated by the government. That there are laws protecting these people isn't arbitrary at all - it's in response to a very real history.

Prior to the Civil Rights Act - there were huge swaths of states where black people couldn't get served at a variety of establishments - in some towns, called Sundown towns, black folks unlucky enough to be around after dusk were in very real mortal danger.

This made it difficult for black people in and around these areas (again, wide swaths of the south and parts of the north) to move freely, let alone get employment, and made it difficult for black people all over the country to have any job that might require any type of travel. It created an incredibly dangerous environment where a black person wanting to take a simple road trip would literally be taking his and his family's lives into his hands. God forbid their car broke down in some town where no restaurant, hotel, or service shop would serve you because of the color of your skin (and back then, black was a more wide-ranging description than today - if you were a hint of mixed race, even 1/8th black, or folks thought you were, you would likely face this discrimination in these areas).

It's in the face of that history that liberals push for anti-discrimination laws. While gays thankfully have it easier, as far as I can tell, than blacks did prior to enforcement of the civil rights act, they have still faced discrimination, they have still faced violence.

In the face of that, those in favor of anti-discrimination laws are fighting to protect people from very real discrimination and bigotry that diminishes the very humanity of American citizens.