It isn’t an analogy I would choose to use. If they didn’t normally carry a particular item and they said, “this is what we have” (take it or leave it) there would be no equivalency. If they didn’t normally carry a particular item but offered special ordering options - but not to a particular customer - it could be interpreted as discrimination (not to me). The way I see it the analogy has too many flaws to be useful.
Let’s look at it another way.
There have been reports of muslim cab drivers who refuse to pick up passengers who have been drinking (but not drunk), or have animals (including service animals) even though there is no prohibition or company policy against either circumstance. The drivers were clearly discriminating. They haven’t been subjected to the same harassment and malicious prosecution that the Washington florist has. I think that this is a more apt analogy for this new reverse-discrimination.
Sure they were. The Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis airport (where most of these stories happened) are prohibited from refusing rides because of dogs/alcohol/etc, and when they challenged those rules they lost in court.
The truth is people can find anything and everything to be offended about. And when they are legitimized, like they have been, they keep pushing it further and further. Meet their demands and they demand more. We don’t need “appropriate” analogies because the there will never be an appropriate one. There will always be a reason why what they believe is different. I thought the key would be to hammer away at the freedom aspect of it. But I can see that most are so used to bending over for FedGov that they have no concept of what it is to stand up.