Why one Georgia florist won't serve gay couples

Are those things not provided to all equally though? As I see it, we only have a right to access those things we have helped pay for. (Those things you mentioned for example.) Those things were deemed to be in the interest of all in the area.

The business makes use of it and pays the necessary fees and taxes to do so at the same rate (sometimes more) as everyone else. They fulfill their obligation for their use of those services with money just as you do.

But if you are a plumber, do I have a right to your services? I pay for access to the city water supply with my taxes, so I must have a right to your labor so I can use the service no?

No. I do not. Part of the two way street of freedom of speech is that it is safe (although maybe not popular) to say distasteful things. People can then (within moral limits) debate your speech, condemn your speech, refuse to frequent your business or town because of your speech etc., but the government provides no avenue for you to be sued to bankruptcy and ruin because of your speech. (With exceptions and stipulations for slander).

Freedom should also extend to our actions. There are certain services that, in emergency situations, should never be withheld from anyone. (ER visits and fire/police support are such examples.) Everything else requires mutual agreement and respect of the seller's property or services and the buyer's money to create a voluntary exchange. If, for whatever reason, the buyer doesn't wish to sell, they shouldn't have to. Whether you find their reasoning distasteful or not may influence their decision, and the decision of future customers whether or not to purchase from that seller, but that should be the extent of it.

Mandating otherwise by law interferes in this process and belies a mistrust of others in the public sphere (as well as an inappropriate interest in legislating change to their thoughts and beliefs).

What emotions do you think such use of force might illicit in the seller? Certainly not ones of endearment. I personally don't believe this contributes to change in any meaningful way. Mutual respect for one another, (even if it only starts with you respecting others when they don't respect you) has more hope of changing hearts and minds than force does.

Yes there are probably examples of the discriminatory types of towns you mention. They would have to find a way to economically support their lifestyle and choices or they would have to change. And in this information age, the mechanism which confronts them with the effects of their decision happens all the more quickly.

Sorry for the wall of text but I wanted to make sure I explained my position as best I could. Appeal to government power to force change drives the attitudes and behaviors we hope to confront with respect and love underground where they can fester. If we want to clear them out then we need to make it "safe" to expose them to the public sphere.

You mention

/r/news Thread Parent Link - cnn.com