[gwright]

Your reformulation doesn't seem reasonable to me.

In both cases the vendor is refusing to conduct business with the customer due to religious beliefs. Why do you think it is OK for the customer to have to find a new photographer in one case but not a different baker in the other?

I really have a hard time with the idea that the government is expected to pick the "right" set of beliefs to back on what should just be a voluntary transaction. Either both parties agree to conduct business or they don't. I realize that a laissez faire approach to commerce is not what we have today but I would prefer it over asking the government to mediate. And I do realize that would allow people and businesses to discriminate, but that just represents a business opportunity for someone else.

[sinsterizme]

In the case of the photographer, the customer isn't being shamed, shunned, and stigmatized. The government definitely has a role here and should intervene in such cases in order to ensure that businesses treat customers equally and respectably.

[gwright]

So it is your belief that the government has a role in preventing someone from being shamed, shunned, or stigmatized by other people?

Is is always important to remember that "has a role" really means "can use force to ensure compliance".

[sinsterizme]

In the case of businesses, yes that’s my belief

[gwright]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Just think about the way modern media companies constantly shame and stigmatize people. How are you going to even define when someone is "shamed" or "stigmatized"? Aren't there people who should be shamed and stigmatized?

This seems completely unworkable and guaranteed to make absolutely no one happy other than the lawyers making money off of all the frivolous legal disputes.

[sinsterizme]

Yeah, you have a good point. My opinions are pretty recently formed on this area so I'm probably off-base, and it was interesting hearing your perspective. Fortunately I'm not a judge! :-)