There's a big presumption there: that the number of other businesses will be significant.

Not really. The argument I'm making there is that there is a vast difference between someone not wanting to associate with you as a friend and between a business refusing to serve you. The difference between one random person choosing to not associate with you, and one pediatrician refusing service is still incredibly stark.

I touch on this in the post to which you're replying - I don't think that gays are facing the same systematic discrimination, at least from what I've seen - but given our history, the majority of people in America find such discrimination so distasteful that we'd rather it not take root, and thus seek to give protections to homosexuals in the same way we've protected other discriminated classes.

Of course, there are wide swaths of areas where gays HAVE faced discrimination - being unable to be open about their sexuality (that they have a partner) lest they be fired (or killed) has not historically been a compartmentalized practice - it was up until fairly recently pretty widespread. There are still numerous states that allow homosexuals to be fired simply for being gay.

"As long as they don't want to involve ME in that sexual orientation, I say live and let live."

Well certainly there were folks who weren't about to lynch black folks who, as long as they didn't have to serve black people, were fine living and letting live.

That people have a more difficult time figuring out who to discriminate against, I don't think, is really much of a mitigating factor.

they didn't say "We refuse to serve gay people" (for just the reasons given above.)

Realize that the reason you're saying they don't discriminate against gays on the regular is not because they are decent people who understand tolerant limits - it's because it's simply too difficult for them to parse out who is and isn't gay. Were it easier for them, don't you think they would discriminate more openly?

And, that's why the Indiana Pizza Place is so contentious

It's a weird example, in my opinion (that's not a judgment on you - just on the fact that this one place has become such a lightning rod). I doubt Indiana Pizza did much wedding catering to begin with - they stepped into a contentious public discussion and folks met their bigotry with both outrage and support. They would likely never run afoul of anti-discrimination laws in the first place had they not just openly opined on their bigotry (and still likely wouldn't because, again, I doubt they do much wedding catering).

But again, I think the distinction you make (they'd serve them, just not their weddings!) is one without much difference. Yes, they only refused to serve gay weddings because that was the only instance where they could be sure they were catering to gay people.

In some areas (like the childcare example I gave above), it is abundantly clear.

So why not limit the law to just those cases where it's abundantly clear? Because I think the general American public has an incredible distaste to that kind of bigotry, to be honest - but again, that's because we've seen how people who belong to a variety of minority groups can be and have been treated. Erring on the side of non-discrimination makes sense. We've seen a regime work before, why not apply it to this new situation, where we have also seen systemic discrimination?

You think that there weren't people claiming their religious sensibilities were being trampled by having to serve African Americans?

So, the question is whether the government should require those few small businesses to serve gay weddings, even if doing so offends the personal beliefs of the families who own and run those businesses.

So are you saying that a law like this should only be created when discrimination has grown to such a huge level that gays can no longer be served anywhere (which, again, is a reality we've lived in - I wonder what you think would happen to a completely out couple trying to have a date in a Shoneys in Indiana in 1991)?

Gay people can always find another pizza joint because the large majority of them would be happy for the business.

I think this takes for granted the smaller rural areas, of which Indiana has a plethora, where there aren't a ton of options for things, where bigotry can be more widespread and more easily go under the radar. Sure, Indianapolis might be easy to just say, "Well fine, screw you bigot, I'm taking my business elsewhere." It's not so easy everywhere.

Recall that part of the logic of expanding marriage to gay couples was, basically, "It's no skin off your nose if they get married." Well, now, the discussion is about removing some of that skin.

My response to this is two-fold:

1) Part of the context of that argument is that it is a response to the contention by Christians that gay marriage will reduce the sanctity of marriage. Gay marriage, in that context, has zero effect on straight marriage.

2) Even if we take your expanded view, I don't think a lot of people at the time were viewing "you get more business and money," as skin off their nose. "But what if I have to make pizzas, as I do in the regular course of my business, and gay people end up eating them at a party celebrating their love?!" is something I think most honest, decent people would respond to by playing the world's tiniest violin.