I think my main problem with this whole argument is that it begins to be a "slippery slope" in the other direction. When the government steps in and starts telling people who they can/can't discriminate against (you can discriminate against gays but not blacks, transgenders but not jews, gays but only if it's for a wedding, but not gays if they just come into your pizza shop wanting a pizza on a Friday night) is that what is to stop me from refusing to issue you blood when you come in to the emergency room hemorrhaging because you're there with your boyfriend and I'm fundamentally against gays? Or if you're Muslim and I'm Christian?
Where does that line go? I think the government needs to make a sweeping "no discriminating against anyone, no matter what, no matter what your personal beliefs, period" law that is for everybody - or else stay out of the entire argument completely and let the chips fall where they may - and see where that domino effect really takes us as a society. But saying 'these groups of people deserve protections, but these groups of people don't deserve protections' is incredibly unfair. PERIOD.
First Amendment jurisprudence has not developed in such a black and white fashion. Civil laws of general application will invariably conflict with the religious beliefs of some people. Our practice has been to allow such religious minorities a day in court to argue that they should be exempt from such laws. If the court finds that: (1) their religious beliefs are sincere; (2) the civil law substantially burdens their beliefs; and either (3) the government doesn't have a compelling interest in doing so; or (4) can achieve its desired end in a way that is less burdensome upon the religious minority, then we've tended to grant exemptions because Madison felt that religious freedom was the most important of our civil liberties.
We've been using this judicial balancing test for decades, and yet we haven't slipped back into apartheid. Precedent indicates that your slippery slope concerns are misplaced.
I don't care if someone is a Satanist, I think it would be wrong to deny someone a mortgage for that reason. How is denying service to a gay person any different?
Because compelling someone to violate his conscience is tyrannical. If a Muslim or fundamentalist Christian declines to serve a gay marriage on religious grounds, the court should apply the balancing test above. If his beliefs are sincere and granting him an exemption would not effectively deny a public accommodation to the gay patrons (in other words, there are other vendors in town offering the same service), then he should be granted an exemption.
It's important to note that over the last 20+ years, no RFRA statute has successfully defended a proprietor's discrimination. These exemptions are, by definition, intended to be rare, and precedent proves that they are.
