In the sense that the people on the other side of this debate are asking homosexuals to live as second class citizens and not enjoy all the same rights as everyone else I think the precedent is grand.
If individuals, even those who happen to own business, want to treat x group as "second class", I don't like it, but it's their right. When government does so, that's a problem.
If they are being punished by the government I agree. If they are punished by their employer that's exactly the right you just argued for.
I agree. But, it is government, in many cases, that is now demanding that bakers provide wedding cakes for same sex weddings. If this were a matter of liberal groups boycotting, complaining, petitioning, etc. against bakeries that they believe are discriminatory, I would advocate for their right to do so (as I have many times). But, when the government steps in and decides that one set of views is acceptable and another is not.
[qupte] We'll see I guess, the civil rights act didn't really get out of the box in this manner, people weren't forced to preform interracial marriages for instance. [/quote]
That's a fair point, but we live in a very different time now. We have seen a progressive in our government, away from faithfulness to the Constitution, especially under the Bush and Obama administrations (FTR, I voted for Obama twice -- mea culpa, but in each case the major party alternative was even worse) and towards a mentality of accomplishing one's goals, by any means necessary. And, by and large, the American people see this is an acceptable response when the politicians happen to agree with them.
If such a case were to come up it would have to be clergy that offer non-religious services widely available to the general public upon request.
It might start there, but it is unlikely to stay there.