I think what is being missed here by those throwing accusations of discrimination against the Memory Pizza owners is that they said they have no problem serving gay customers but would not want to cater a gay wedding because same-sex marriage violates their Christian faith.
In that they are willing to serve gays refutes the accusation that they "discriminate" against their
orientation. That they would not, however, cater a gay wedding is not a refusal to serve the orientation, but to
participate in their
behavior.
Proprietors are allowed to remove customers from their store if they behave in ways that offend the owners. If a couple enters a pizzeria and orders a pizza, the proprietor is beholden to sell them one. If a couple, gay or straight or indefinite, act in overtly amorous or overly affectionate ways, a proprietor is allowed to ask them to stop or leave the premises. If a wedding party, gay or straight or indefinite, marches into a pizzeria, without the owner's permission and sets up a wedding ceremony and demands pizza to serve them, the owner has every right to make them leave and not serve them. If, on the other hand, the owner agrees to such a wedding, then she is willing to materially participate in the ceremony. But why should someone be forced to participate in a wedding outside of her store if she shouldn't be forced to participate in one in her store?
Weddings are not, as far as we know, a genetic orientation. They are behaviors in which people of all stripes can willingly engage or not. If a behavior, which is not necessary to ones "orientation" is opposed by someone else's beliefs, why should that someone be forced to participate in that objectionable behavior?
The difference between serving your wares to those of various "orientations" and in participating in the behavior of those with differing orientations is critical. It is fundamental to a society based, among other things, on individual rights and freedom of association--ultimately, fundamental to freedom itself.
Selling pizzas has inherently the goal that they be eaten and enjoyed--if for no other reason than to get repeat customers. But there are quirks and potentialities which are either out of the proprietors hands, or are part of her individual proclivity. What happens to the pizza when it leaves the shop is outside of the proprietor's persuasion. But if the buyer says that it is going to be used to feed the alley rats, or a host of any other nefarious uses, I doubt that the law, nor most anyone else, would object to the proprietor not selling the pizza. That is not to compare gays, or straights, or indeterminates, to alley rats, but to point out that there can be numerous instances in which the pizza seller can refuse to sell the pizza.
That is where the individual proclivity of the seller is important and not always to be forbidden by force of law. Beyond the inherent goal that his pizzas are sold to be eaten and enjoyed, he has a material participation in the production and sale of his pizzas. If he has a religious world view that prohibits his participation in behaviors which contradict his religion, denying him the freedom not to associate in those behaviors is denying him one of the most basic tenets of liberty. Even though it violates a most basic individual right, it may be understandable in abstract terms of "equality" that the simple sale of his wares to anyone who wishes to buy them be protected, including the buyers "right" to equal treatment. But how is it comprehensible that the seller must not only sell his wares, but participate, against his will, in the behaviors to which his products will be used?
Bigotry abounds on all sides. Gay bigotry and Christian bigotry may well collide in constant and differing ways. Is the answer, then, to eliminate differences into a homogenous society where there are none? If bigotry is inherent in some form or other in all of us, including Spence and PaulS, should we strive to eliminate all difference by force of law so that everyone is in a state of perfect "equality"? Perhaps we all could be Spence. How perfect is a world without bigotry? What would happen to the sacred cow of evolution? Is Nirvana such a good and perfect thing?
Vive la difference!
In a liberal society based on individual rights and freedom of association, the law must allow all bigots who do not trample on others bigotry to flourish. The Pizzeria declining to cater a gay wedding does not deny the gays the ability to have a wedding or to have a gay identity, or orientation. The force of law making the pizzeria participate in the gay wedding against the owners Christian beliefs or go out of business, denies the ability to have a pizzeria with their own Christian identity, or orientation.
In a truly liberal, or tolerant society, we should be able to view this as this gay business woman does:
http://www.newnownext.com/lesbian-bu...-fund/04/2015/