Sadly, that boat sailed back in the 60s, when we used the power of the state to force racists to change their ways of doing business.
If a motel owner with sincere religious beliefs against “race-mixing” can be forced to rent a room to an interacial couple, and he has been for 50 years, then the state can compel businessmen to provide services to same-sex weddings.
There are only three real rationales for opposing the extension of this principle, assuming you accept the original law.
1. You disapprove of racism but approve of opposition to homosexuality and/or SSM.
2. Race should be a category protected against discrimination, but sexual orientation should not.
3. Personally participating in an event is different from making accomodations available to all. It implies approval.
#1 won’t logically work.
I agree with #2, but I suspect that boat has sailed, and it isn’t coming back.
Any future resistance I believe will need to be based on #3. Not on 1A’s religious freedom clause, but on its freedom speech clause. Artistic expression such as photography or cake decorating is speech. Freedom of speech requires the right to not speak if you choose not to.
“Sadly, that boat sailed back in the 60s, when we used the power of the state to force racists to change their ways of doing business.”
Actually state power well preceded this. Businesses were forced to conform to racist views and were limited in how they could do business by the Democrat racists.
“If a motel owner with sincere religious beliefs against “race-mixing” can be forced to rent a room to an interacial couple”
The state forced people to not “race mix”. This was not an option. It was illegal.
The Democrats did all of this and continue to do it.