A ban you choose to participate in (since it by definition only affects people who choose to be devout Christians to the extent that even interacting with homosexuals is forbidden, a philosophy which I&#x27;m not at all confident is in the bible, who  also choose to own a business devoted to serving the public) seems more tolerant than a ban which is forced upon you (since nobody chooses their sexual orientation).<p>Do you disagree? I&#x27;m not arguing that it&#x27;s completely tolerant, but unfortunately we have a case where one person completely refuses to tolerate the mere existence of another so I think it&#x27;s clear that one hundred percent toleration is off the table. Since one person is choosing to be intolerant and the other isn&#x27;t, it doesn&#x27;t seem unreasonable at all to place restrictions on the person making the choice; if they feel that the inconveniences are too much, they&#x27;re obviously welcome to rethink their choice. You can&#x27;t really ask that of a gay person.