DT--I think you're onto something with your "rabid-conservative-baiting" theory. Sort of like "red-dogging" in football. Choose your battles carefully where you have the best chance of winning. Good strategy.

You want to force the government into revoking property rights it never tried to accomplish. Nobody was forced in MS to do business with LGBT. The law is basically a solution in search of a problem.

Other than it's proof he's a loose cannon and might do the same while it can effect Mozilla? Employers have to be able to take action to protect the business, no?

Ahh, disagreement is a symptom of being "seriously disturbed". Yeah, sounds like you're just intellectually sloppy.

Well, it's no worse than you saying that they are now, no?

Actually, the tenth amendment reserves all nonenumerated rights to the various states...

Nothing is valid then, including the bigoted business's cause of action in having the purple lesbian eunuch removed. The choice by the BB not to consummate the transaction estops the claim of willfull trespass because the PLE was invited on to the property for and fully intended on purchasing the good or service, but was prevented by the BB's action. No amount of moral calculus in the world is going to change the fact that it was the BB that broke the peace

As for Eich's ouster, Mozilla is a 501(c)3 organization, which is tax exempt as a _quid pro quo_ of being prohibited by law from issue advocacy outside their narrow charter

Did you read the whole article. The donation was a private one in 2010....4 years before he got the job. No law involved here.

Yes, right, you can tell that to your wife and kids on visiting day. Consequences be damned!

Good point, it was only a potentially valid transaction, and they are only potential customers.

Though that may just be mincing words.

Lol I like your analogy. I'm big on the NAP so I think we have common ground there. So are you saying that the initiation of force is coming from the bigoted business in the form of redefining another human? I don't think that defining people violates there individual rights. Furthermore rejecting contact with another human also infringes no one's rights, it's actually one of the best defenses against irrational people.

I would say however, that if the business signed a contract with a customer, and then later refused to hold up their side of the contract because they discovered they were dealing with a PLE, then it would be a violation of rights. Your case would be stronger if the business had a sign up offering service to anyone who walked in the door, but with out that sign, or a sign stating explicitly that they refuse service to PLE's, than the business has no obligation to interact with anyone.

The government ISN'T enforcing politeness, correctness, or morality at this point in time. The law states that LEOs now must enforce the business owner's morality

People have the right of association - to associate or not, do business or not, with whomever they please. But basing this on "religious grounds" is both bogus and against separation of Church and State. People also have every right to expose irrational bigotry and advocate boycotts of any businesses engaging in it. I can't imagine a pharmacy would stay in business long if it refused to fill prescription because it didn't like something about a customer or what they presume about a customer. The principle of "mind your own business" is important.

Agree with Robbie. At that point it is trespassing. this is no different than a bartender choosing not to serve a drunken patron, or a restaurant choosing not to serve someone in "baggy pants" or no shoes. "I'm sorry sir, you'll have to leave".
In some cases it will be unpleasant and considered inappropriate by most people (except the baggy pants thing), but then they can also choose what to do about it. The Government should not enforce politeness, correctness or morality.
A public school, the military and government office is different.