Haha, right. Like I said, I personally would prefer to take my business elsewhere, anyway. I wouldn't want to help line the pockets of a bigot.

And punitive action is not the antithesis of capitalism, just of laissez faire capitalism.

History has clearly shown us that communism and socialism don't work, and that capitalism is the only viable economic system. But that doesn't mean laissez faire capitalism is the only viable form of capitalism. Of all the different forms of capitalism which exist, why should we immediately jump to the conclusion that only laissez faire is viable, or even that laissez faire is viable at all, especially when a true laissez faire system has never existed anywhere? I can readily agree with any economist who promotes capitalism, though I have many suspicious and reservations about laissez faire. I believe regulations are necessary to ensure health and safety, and also to promote equality and fairness.

(By the way, hiring a nanny isn't the same as running a business, so laws against discrimination don't apply there. Remember the distinction between the private and public spheres.)

Except that there is nothing wrong with filing a lawsuit against someone who violates your rights.

People have a right to be idiots, sure, but they do not have the right to discriminate.

Personally, I would have filed a lawsuit and then gone to a different photography company anyway, but I can understand if this couple wanted to set an example.

Telling business owners that they cannot discriminate does not violate their freedom because there is no such thing as the right to discriminate. There is only the right to be free from discrimination.

Whenever I hear someone say they have the right to discriminate, their arguments sound about as valid as that of a slave owner insisting that he has the right to own slaves.

Why should LGBT people refrain from expressing their sexuality when straight people do not? Enforced silence is a form of oppression.

"Let's not forget that the opponents of the movement were Democrats."
---
Let's also not forget that after the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, huge swaths of racist Democrats left the party and became Republicans.

As long as your criteria doesn't exclude on the basis of one of the legally protected statuses above, you should be fine. For example, excluding someone because they lack the skills you need does not qualify as discrimination, since lack of skill is not a legally protected status.

It's not a matter of making people feel welcome, it's a matter of protecting people's right to be free from discrimination.