Interesting...
I’ve always distinguished between sales of pre-made off-the-shelf products like say a can of peas, vs customized yet-to-be-made products like wedding cakes, the latter of which involves a degree of participating in and implied endorsement of a buyer’s lifestyle choices.
At first blush a home seems to be the former, meaning it should be sold to anyone. And while I’d somewhat understand an argument that might distinguish this from that group because so much of a seller’s ego and identity is associated with their former home, I still think it belongs with those pre-made products for which a seller could not deny sales to any legal buyer on that basis. For example, imagine if a co-op board wrote no gays into their eligibility rules. They’d have an even better freedom of association argument, but I don’t think that would still persuade me, because as many like to say, what a person does behind closed doors is their business.
So flame away any who disagree, but if think Dana is wrong on this one.
Personally I am at the point of thinking that no one should be required to provide services to anyone they choose not to work with.
No one.
No special classes or cases.
No one.