Britian knows how to put bigot Christians in their place

[Fidel_Castronaut]

And that's the key.

This is why I hate when this issue comes up, because for some reason everyone forgets how to argue and just defaults to saying "well, it's against the law".

Fair enough, it's against the law. Nobody here is denying that, so there is no need to bring it up. The people here arguing in favour of private businesses being allowed to discriminate are arguing for why the law should be changed. A proper response to that argument is not "it's against the law, so tough", it would be a counter-argument which tries to convince us why the law should remain.

Honestly, no laws would ever get changed if people argued the way people have been in this thread.

I take your point.

The law should remain because it is correct; discriminating against someone based on circumstances they have no control over is wrong. "Tough" is the right response in this specific case (actually EU legislation, and the 2010 equality act, are pretty confused on some issues regarding discrimination, arguably meaning a much more rigorous review of this should be conducted).

The evolution of legislative frameworks in most western states has recognized this over the course of several decades.

I also made a point about legal precedents being set upon the law being flouted by the courts when a complaint is raised and upheld in a spurious case such as this. This leads to disasters through confused and mixed up legislation. One great example, of course, is the exemption laws of the 1970s not enforcing (among other things) hard hats and helmets to be worn by Sikhs on bikes and construction sites, creating all sorts of issues for insurance and legislatures in the years proceeding it (arguably leading to one of the worst policies ever created by the UK government; the racial and religious hatred act).

An argument for the why the law needs to be changed isn't always a good one. In this case, it's a shit one, and is wrong.

Discriminating against someone based on their sexual preferences is wrong, so really, the law doesn't need to be changed. The private sector doesn't and, to clarify in response to you, shouldn't, get a free pass.