This is the whole point of everything. If you believe strongly in a thing, then you should fight for it. And other people in society will judge you for it (rightly so!)
So yeah, you decide that you care enough about "sanctity of marriage" so you decide to not sell cakes. So everyone who disagrees with you boycotts your business. Others believe that sexual orientation is such an important thing that they make it illegal for you to do this! This is how stuff happens!
There isn't some sort of rules-based pre-judgement for this sort of stuff. It gets played out over time. And you're responsible for your decisions in this front.
It's a colossal problem because it is an authoritarian stance hidden behind incoherent arguments of morality. There is no morality or ethics. There is only pushy people trying to strong-arm everyone around to comply with their personal world view under the threat of being cut off from a product/service.
You envision society as a battleground for various moral perspectives. I think there's some truth to that. But are there any ground rules? If so, what are they? Are you giving me license to firebomb ICE facilities because I "believe strongly" that ICE is evil? Or is the law a red line that no one can cross? If so, what about "bad laws"? What about civil disobedience?
Another perspective on this is that, for a society to function, people need to be able to agree to disagree about most things. This means that we are all morally compromised and we all must be morally compromised in order to live together. A society in which everyone follows their own moral impulses is a society that will not function.
I find myself wavering between these two perspectives (the first being yours). I don't mind people protesting. But how about blocking roads? How about vandalizing your ideological opponent's office? How about smashing windows? How about preventing your ideological opponents from speaking? It seems to me that your perspective minimizes the danger here. There's no guarantee that things will just work out. We might reach a level of polarization after which we simply won't be able to cooperate.
right, it's impossible to establish a universal, objective framework for morality. instead, we can only make compromises between majorities and vocal minorities, codify them as laws and ethics, and enforce them.
however, that doesn't absolve you of sticking up for your moral code, depending on what it is. for example, I'm gay. I know that Chik-Fil-A is complying with the law, and that its owners are funding advocacy for conversion therapy and other anti-LGBT issues. I wouldn't want Chik-Fil-A to be dismantled, since it's lawful, but I refuse to eat there, since my personal morals prevent me from giving money to people who want to hurt people like me. I'd also support protests of Chik-Fil-A, since protest is a lawful action (at least, social media campaigns and picket lines.)
Don't be lazy. Stand up for what you believe in. The law is the lowest common denominator, and legality doesn't absolve you of your actions.
So what are you saying then? That there are no moral absolutes? Or just that because people disagree on what is moral business should be allowed to act in interest of profit only?
This is the whole point of everything. If you believe strongly in a thing, then you should fight for it. And other people in society will judge you for it (rightly so!)
So yeah, you decide that you care enough about "sanctity of marriage" so you decide to not sell cakes. So everyone who disagrees with you boycotts your business. Others believe that sexual orientation is such an important thing that they make it illegal for you to do this! This is how stuff happens!
There isn't some sort of rules-based pre-judgement for this sort of stuff. It gets played out over time. And you're responsible for your decisions in this front.