I think thousands of threads could be written on whether homosexuality is "right" or "wrong," "free choice" or otherwise, but I'm asking something different: Is it morally correct for homosexuals to target businesses like bakers and photographers who do have issues with the behavior and don't want to participate in their "marriages?" Do these people deserve to be driven out of their livelihoods for their beliefs? Should they be forced to do things they think are immoral because they're bigots?
Did Brendan Eich deserve to be fired from Mozilla because he donated to a proposition campaign to prohibit gay marriage in California? Should Chik-Fil-A be likewise driven out of business because of what the CEO believed (back when he was alive)? Back when these were news stories, people like George Takei were dancing in the streets in glee. Were they right to gloat?
My questions are related to public policy, and are apart from the question of the morality of homosexuals. How should the state involve itself in these questions, in light of the fact we've been regulating the denial of service rights of businesses since the sixties and the Civil Rights Act? I maintain Freedom of Association has been a dead letter for decades, so isn't it a natural extension of the Civil Rights laws to force people into whatever commerce the state approves? Perhaps, after we get the euthanasia laws passed (they will eventually), we should force doctors to kill their patients, even if they don't want to.
I don't see it primarily as a social conservative issue as much as a commercial one, and I think we've been going to commerce Hell in a handbasket for a very long time. Just MHO.
First we make a behavior legal, then we make it acceptable, then we make it customary, then we ostracize people with moral objections as "bigots," then we force them to participate or go out of business. I think of that every time I see someone call someone else a bigot for not agreeing with the sequence.