Colorado Appeals Court Tell Xtian Baker

[Dystopia]

But that is not the law in that state.

Yes, Dura Lex Sed Lex - It's just my opinion

A percentage of my tax dollars are used for the local, state and federal services that businesses utilize and benefit from, same as yours.
Your proposal could only be acceptable if a business did not use any taxpayer funded resources of any kind, whatsoever.
Btw, If a fire were to occur at this hypothetical business, they would need to have a private engine company at their disposal to to tame the flames. No using municipal water, either.

[color]
I didn't know America, the land of the free where public services are supposedly hated had the government funding privately owned businesses, I've never heard of such a thing in my entire life - Even if that's true, why is your personal preference relevant? Most people would not want to pay taxes anyway, you're saying specifically that you do not wish to fund businesses that refuse to serve gays, but anti-gay Christians will, most likely, want to fund those businesses - If I'm transgender and genderqueer, can I refuse to fund a shop that segregates items by male/female because I think that's wrong? If not, why is your opinion any more relevant? You never know where your tax money goes, never - You just pay and you know it's going somewhere, no one knows certainly where it goes.[/color]

Yes, if someone is fired without proper cause, I don't see why the government is needed. In my country, if you're fired without compelling reason you have the right to both the employer's compensation and the government's pension, but both are separate rights that don't intersect with each other. Unemployment benefits are government provided and compensations are given by the employer in a court of Law when you're fired without a legally admissible reason.

Your personal preference about where you want your taxpayer money to go is not relevant because we all have them - Most of us don't even enjoy paying taxes, it's a coercive institution by its very nature. The fact people running businesses have preferences doesn't invalidate state funding.

The problem with an idea like this is it allows for oppression by the majority. Imagine you are a gay person living in a city dominated by Christian business owners with no anti discrimination laws, suddenly you cant buy groceries, get a job, or rent an apartment. We might as well go back to segregated society at that point, large majority groups could essentially force out minority groups.

The problem with imagining is that it leads to unrealistic scenarios, and I said specifically that essential rights shouldn't be taken away like survival, food, clothing and healthcare. I'm talking about privately owned businesses, government officials should follow the law no matter what. Baking a cake doesn't sound like an activity that is essential to your survival (unless you're arguing you only eat cakes) and it's an activity that can be provided by anyone else who specializes in bakery. Private businesses opened to the public are still private, and subjecting the market to government regulation decide by a small number of politicians who claim to be wise is just not a very good idea. What is the criterion to decide who's a protected class? And why? Rest assured, my country protects minorities as well, though there isn't a legal equivalent to protected class, but there are laws that create analogous situations - Still I find a lot of incongruences such as requirements being arbitrarily applied to some groups but not to others.