[xoa]

>Given that such logic was once used to attempt to deny service to and harass PoCs, religious, LGBTQ and other formerly "undesirable" classes, society clearly doesn't buy that logic and made them into protected classes and required businesses to serve them on an equal footing.

No, that was not the logic, businesses were not discriminating based purely on speech and choices of content. That's the point. I mentioned Protected Classes, but those are about entire classes of people and things that are innate to their personhood. Skin color and sex/gender being obvious ones, but disabilities either at birth or acquired later in life still are innate aspects. We've decided that public businesses as part of the privileges they have may not discriminate and rightly so.

But none of that has anything to do with actions and expression, and indeed a core part of the point is that all protected classes are in no way "inferior" or less capable of reason, argumentation, responsibility, social activities and so on! No one is born with some political alignment, as humans we all have to develop that ourselves.

>* It's not a valid argument unless you're arguing to roll back protected classes too*

No, because the worldview you've come to about given issues, morals and so on have nothing to do with protected classes.

[ThrowawayR2]

> "innate to their personhood"

Religion is not innate, nationality is not innate (cf. the discriminatory "Help Wanted. No Irish Need Apply" signs of the 19th century), and while sexual preference may be innate, expression of it can be consciously restrained as demonstrated by all those people who suffered from being "being in the closet". Does not being innate mean these protected classes should not exist? Clearly not, so appealing to innateness does not rescue your argument.