The bar is welcome to serve whatever beer they want, if you come in and ask for a specific brand they can refuse service because they don't stock it.
I would argue it would be akin to walking into a bar and saying I am racist because I only sell brand X and you demand I buy brand Y just for you.
Let me try to make the point in a another way.
Let's say a gay person asks her to create a website for their friends "normal" marriage, she is fine with it and takes their money. She didn't discriminate against their sexuality, she rendered the service to a gay person just fine, the difference is the product.
Now let's flip it, a straight person askes her to create a website for their gay friends wedding. She now has refused service based on the product sold.
The question the court needs to answer where is the line drawn, they have chosen it. Religion is also protected, racism has no religious base, what is deemed marriage is.
The argument to be made is that she does not believe that marriage between gay people is right and she refused service on those grounds, whether asked by either sexuality.
This is all hypothetical but the point is the argument isn't trivial, how you frame it makes a big difference.
And yet, religion was touted for many years in this country as a justification for horrific racial discrimination.
The big issue here is that the court has declared that some classes are more protected than others, which will allow discrimination to flourish. They haven’t struck the right balance with this ruling.
Maybe if I read the court documents it states that but from the article I don't see that.
But that is what underpins the concept of business.
A set of restrictions on what activities a business can do and how they interact with society.
To get shocked when society wants to prevent discrimination seems odd.
That reads to me as "I don't think laws are fair and people should be able to do whatever they want to do."
I don't want to pay taxes, I don't want to pay my bills, and I don't want to have to wait to be sober to drive, but I do it all anyways because the law compels me.
I appreciate that physically hurting is not appropriate in your law, but it should be your right to hurt others in any non-physical manner if you feel like it, no limits.
Dropping concrete limitations to the scope of law opens it up too anything. What is non-physical harm? What if turning down someone's sexual advances hurts their self-esteem? What if refusing to work for me hurts my ability to make a living.
The point is that once you abandon a concrete definition of harm, your punished into a world of capricious law what's the times to regulate every individual Behavior on a Case by case basis.
Consider a case in which a majority of society excludes a minority from most commerce. Are ghettos, ‘separate but equal,’ and whites-only fountains not worth preventing?
The government is not telling you to sell cakes on your day off; it's saying that as long as you're already selling cakes for the public, you can't be a bigot and discriminate.
I know a white supremacist, overtly fascist (that is otherwise a fine friend) who has a black great grandfather. He'd be considered black in the US.
Imagine a town square with spaces for market stalls. There are limited spaces. Thus if you take one, you are preventing someone else from taking one. They are public property and thus the public has a right to set terms for the business you conduct there.
Now that analogy holds for other kinds of business too. Even if you "own" the building that your bar is in, you never really fully own real estate in most countries. There are limits on what you can use it for because it's connected (physically) to the rest of the world which belongs to other people.
In contrast, my expectation is that I do fully own my brain and my thoughts and my attention and my intellectual output, and it's extremely disturbing to me that anyone thinks they should be able to compel me to devote those things to their purposes.