“When the hardcore logic of the libertarian freedom philosophy collides with the larger emotion-based responses to real world discrimination, arguments sometimes go utterly nowhere. There isn’t a debate that can be had when the two sides don’t even agree on what words like slavery and freedom even mean.”
Scott Shackford says Nobody, Gay or Straight, Has the Right to a Wedding Cake. “Rather than arguing over who can discriminate or why, look at what goods and services actually need government protection through public accommodation laws.”
The issue is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the expansion of its definition of public accommodations. In the process, topics such as historical abuse of property rights and the concept of the government forcing selected behaviors are mentioned. The emotional burden in the debate is described as clouding progress.
“Maybe instead of arguing who should or shouldn’t be exempt from certain public accommodation laws, perhaps we should be looking more closely at what’s included in public accommodation laws. That’s really where the wiggle room is.” … “What we should take from that is that perhaps our public accommodation laws are too broad. There is a place in the American consciousness that allows for respect for property rights and freedom of association even if it leads to behavior many agree is bigoted.”
The question is that of just how much one citizen must bow to the preferences of another. That becomes a more significant problem when one citizen is demanding behaviors that help him confirm the validity of what he knows is likely deviant.