[joshuamorton]

The idea that companies shouldn't be given the right to business association because their civil rights are less important that the civil rights of others is a moral one.

Civil rights are always in conflict, and which ones you prioritize and how is a moral decision. You can't abdicate that responsibility.

Put another way, why does it violate civil rights to offer a service conditionally, but not to refuse to offer the service at all?

Or in the reverse, why is the government able to regulate my offering of a service conditionally, even though you seem to believe that them compelling me to offer the service in general is a violation of my rights?

Or yet another way: why do you believe that the right of association is less important than the right of speech?

Those are all ultimately moral or ethical questions.

[FeepingCreature]

Yes, sorry, I agree. These are all moral questions. My position can be generally summed up as "the less individual an organization is, the less weight its rights have." This is because I consider the individual as the ultimate purpose of society.

That is, the more individuals your organization serves, the more it becomes a "thing whose arbitration between individuals is of societal import". I believe that issues of societal import should be decided by democratic means, whereas issues of individual import are decided by personal choice. Between the two is a sliding scale.