If you open a business reasonably believed to serve anyone and everyone, such as a restaurant or flower shop,
I argue that it's not reasonable to believe that such a business must serve anyone and everyone - provided, such a business doesn't effectively have a monopoly. You're the only hotel in town? There's a compelling public interest in making sure you don't deny service to people. When you're a food truck on a street with 50 other food trucks, I don't see a compelling public interest, as there are plenty of other places to get the service desired.
But ultimately, based on this clarification you offered, what it basically boils down to is that you don't believe a religious objection is a "valid reason" unless the business is "religion-centric" (which I would LOVE to see a definition for). And I disagree. I gave an example of where I form an LLC to protect my personal assets from my business assets, but it's still a sole proprietorship, and I am the only employee. According to you, the act of forming the LLC removes my ability to refuse to provide services to others according to my prerogative. Why? Why does the act of forming an LLC change my rights as a person?
I reiterate for the thousandth time: even if the proprietor is only against gay marriage, the objection is still the result of the patron's sexuality, not their choice to marry
And your point is complete bullshit. If they were gay and not getting married, they'd be served, ergo, it's not discriminating against them on the basis of their orientation. Let's change the context a bit: suppose I own a gun, and I shoot and kill someone in cold blood. I get sent to prison for a very long time. According to your logic, I could argue I'm being sent to prison because I'm a gun owner. Bullshit. I'm being sent to prison because I shot someone. Likewise, the gay couple isn't being denied service because they're gay, but because they want to have a gay wedding. Furthermore, they're not being banned from the establishment or anything - the florist merely refused to do the wedding. If the gay couple wanted flowers the following week, the florist would have provided them.
There needs to be some level of registration and regulation to run a business big enough for an adult to make a living
Why? And why does your reason apply to a landscaping company but not to a teenager who wants to mow lawns in the summer?
You can't carve out a part you like for your exclusive use,
Of course you can carve out a part for your exclusive use. At it's most basic level, you carve out the 20ft by 6ft section of road that your car is on at any given moment for your exclusive use, which is why someone running into you is WRONG for doing so. This isn't terribly pertinent to the issue at hand, though, since it's not like the florist gets a designated "florists only" lane on the road. I don't see where anyone is trying to garner exclusive use of a public resource.
part of using public resources is playing by the public's (i.e. the state's) rules.
Fine then, give me the choice to pay no taxes, and then not use any public resources. Taxes are not voluntary, so use of public resources is a legitimate entitlement. You don't get to say "You MUST pay me, but if you want to use the stuff that YOUR money built, you have to do what I say." But even if I accept the idea that you have to follow the state's rules in order to use public resources, I would argue that only rightly extends as far as the rules that govern those resources. For example, "if you want to drive on public roads, obey traffic laws" makes sense for the most part. "If you want to earn a living running a business, you have to participate in ceremonies you personally disagree with."
Owning a business and being an employee of someone else's business carry different responsibilities.
I'm arguing that in principle, they don't. When I work for my employer, I am effectively the CEO of my own 1-person business. As a matter of law, I agree that there is a difference. My argument is that there is no LOGICAL reason for that to be the case. It is that way because it is, and there is no other reason that I can think of. I'm talking about principle here.
Here's an interesting thought experiment for you. Suppose I own a business. Let's say I'm a florist (for consistency). But let's say I have 10 employees, all very capable folks. Suppose I agree to have my business provide flowers for a gay wedding (you know, since I don't want to be sued into the ground), but all 10 of my employees refuse to do it because of their own personal objections. What then? Am I supposed to fire them all? Since I have no staff to do it, I won't be able to perform the services, so am I still at risk of being sued into the ground?
the privilege of running your own business
There you go again, acting like earning a living is a privilege...