By muddling those issues together, you prevent rational political discourse.
The issues are already muddied, I'm merely acting on the basis of this fact.
The laws share a similar motivation and as such aren't independent but here the core question is whether the government can forbid private businesses that operate publically from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
Except that's not how the law is being applied. A law against discrimination against gays would forbid bakers from kicking out patrons who happen to be gay. (Granted "anti-discrimination" isn't exactly a coherent concept to begin with.)
This is similar to the difference between forbidding restaurants from putting up signs saying "no Jews allowed" and requiring all restaurants to serve kosher meals.
Granted "anti-discrimination" isn't exactly a coherent concept to begin with.
It is a "targeted concept". This is a term I came up with as I don't know of any better. People who defined the legal murder did not have any idea of who could be the typical murderer and who the different victim. It was not targeted for special people or special motivations, it was solely about the act. Discrimination is a targeted concept, it is targeted for the kind of behavior that arises from sentiments like racism. It does not have a really coherent de...
Over at Scott Adams' Blog you can find a very fine example of using the 'Rationality Engine' to solve the social problem of assisted dying.