Still waiting on those challenges, Maphesdus.
An ethical and responsible answer might include agreement that you cannot find the evidence you claim at the very least, an agreement that the concept (not 'me") is correct and your original idea incorrect, if you cannot meet the challenges poised.
It may be common for people to go silent in text discussions when they cannot answer a challenge of that sort, but the end result is that there is only one conclusion to be raised: You do not have the evidence for what you claim, yet. (Note the yet, as things change and I've been in that situation before).

So I state here, apparently unchallenged, that a private business NOT covered by the Commerce Clause of interstate business (thank you, Maphesdus, for bringing up that factor), does NOT have to give service to anyone, nor do they need a reason.

Now at the same time, I would, in my personal business and that of any employee I have consider it unethical to refuse service. If a person of faith had difficulty serving a gay customer, I would switch them out but WITHOUT apology to the guest. I do not owe them not to hire theists nor to magically detect their sexual orientation and supply them with those who do not feel contempt toward their lifestyle. Freedom is full of unpleasant things.

We need to learn to deal with that instead of trying to force, by law, everyone to behave the way we want.

Ah, but for a small business owner like a cake maker or photographer there is an association and it's personal. It's not simply a business transaction. The baker gets forced into personally making a cake against his/her will and the photographer must attend an event against his/her will.

Hey, if a neo-nazi group wanted to celebrate Hitler's birthday, would you sue a jewish cake decorator for refusing to make the swastika cake or a jewish photographer for refusing to photograph the festivities and making nice little commemorative albums?

Heck, I'm not jewish and I'd tell those creeps to hit the road!

Horowitz's site is a great resource.
Enjoy.

Holy moly, Eudaimonia! Thanks for the link. These people are the new "Inquisition". That is, they can make anyone guilty of something as long as they define the rules and torture long enough to establish what it is their poor victim is guilty of. All they have to do is publicly hang a few genuine baddies to establish the credibility to hang anyone they wish.

This law is minimally good but bad in other respects.
Anyone should have the legal right to discriminate against anyone for any reason, as long as he is not violating another's rights to life, liberty, POH.
But this restricted law is absent rational motivation, complicates enforcement of said right, and shows hatred for a particular group.
This is an example of politically-driven law that has been killing the Republican party.

No doubt. We are over-regulated. Please elaborate. Must a restaurant owner do business with an obnoxious drunk that runs off their other clients? Must I do business with someone that does not pay on my terms but drags out payment?

quoting OP: " I noticed at the bottom of the webpage a link to an article about Mozilla’s CEO getting bounced out of his job for merely sending a $1,000 donation to to a campaign to ban gay marriage in California,". Not my problem if you go out of your way to be butthurt for things other people said.

Good point star.

In the case of a private firm doing something to somebody else? Exactly where I am right now, on the sidelines, enjoying the schadenfreude.

Can't answer? Throw homophobe name bombs and run away? So do most terrorists, only they don't use words. The results can be just as devastating to people and their lives. This bill tells the good people of Mississippi that they can do business with who they want without fear. It also affirms that religious leaders and churches can be free from assaults based on so called sexual intolerance.

We know that quiet force is being brought to bear on churches to force them to perform homosexual marriages, that's what this whole marriage thing has been about. Although I am not any church or denominational leader, I can assure you that the forces are gathering to stop any such attempt. You will not corrupt all churches such profane acts.

Remember that anything that the force coercion can swing with the help of one group of "useful idiots" can force to swing the other way with another group of "useful idiots". Today the "soup de'jure" are homosexual rights, tomorrow it might be socialism or communism, or even religious intolerance - where would that leave you?

Hrmm... using Marxist shibboleths like "Social Justice" and citing the Southern Poverty Law Center as a legitimate source.

I've been away a while.
Is this Maphesdus with a phantom account?

Here's the real skinny on the SPLC from David Horowitz's Anti-Communist website.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/print...

you can cry foul until you're blue in the face, at the end of the day, this was a personnel decision by a corporation, Mozilla has the right via "employment at will" to fire Eich for any reason it sees fit, or no reason at all, and you're trying to insert yourself into the decisionmaking process with no previous stake: you neither invested in Mozilla nor recommended Eich to them. Frankly, it's their business, you should mind yours.

You have already established that I am someone who is not going to be overt. The question is WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO SOMETHING MORE THAN THUMP YOUR CHEST?

You are of course correct....so when will you be taking up arms? Like the founders did.