"Supreme Court allows Mississippi anti-LGBT law to stand"

If you force someone to give someone service, that's theft of intellectual property. Doesn't mean discrimination is right either. 

Ampersand said:
No-one is being forced to give a service. People give the service that they choose to provide as part of their job, they must merely give it to people without discrimination.

That basically means they are forced to give it to LGBT consumers even when they don't want to...

@Ampersand But their objections were for the most part courteous. I believe in the protection of religious freedoms, and businesses have always had the right to refuse service. It isn't a violation of human rights, as no consumer is entitled to a service. For example, a restaurant owner is allowed to refuse service to anyone, as the customer is not entitled to eating at said restaurant, in the same way that a gym is allowed to refuse service to anyone, as human beings are not entitled to these services. These bakers have a belief that has been passed down for generations upon generations, and to be forced to go directly against those beliefs by a law is a larger violation of freedoms than the consumer being refused service by the baker.

@Ampersand But many of these businesses are privately owned, therefore they are not being paid to not do their job. They may believe that gay marriage is wrong, but yes, it is true that they are not allowed to discriminate based on that. But if the customer requested for an "explicitly gay cake", such as one featuring two men kissing or something of the like, then I believe that it is the businesses right to refuse to follow that demand. Yes, the law is egregious when it comes to state employees issuing marriage licenses, I have to concede to that. But in terms of private companies, I believe that it is their right to refuse service. 

"Also customers are entitled not to be denied service based on protected characteristics like race and sexual orientation. There are specifically laws to that effect!"

I don't believe that they are entitled to the services of another, as the performing of services are first and foremost the decision of the business. That is exactly why I believe that the law is completely justified for privately owned businesses. For governments, it shouldn't be permitted for an employee to refuse service, but for a private business it is completely justified to refuse service based on religious beliefs.

As a private entity, I can discriminate all I want.  If I should decide that I shall never speak to another white person, or that I shall never utter another word to a heterosexual couple, that is my prerogative.  And it is the same with private businesses.  They can close shop anytime they want.  If a straight couple were to go into a private bakers shop and request a custom cake, if the private business owner doesn't want to bake them a cake, he ought to have every legal right to send everyone outside, and close up shop for the day, or for the week if he so chooses.  He in fact ought to be permitted to send anyone out of his private establishment that he doesn't want in his establishment at any time he chooses.  

It is not the same with public entities, like governments, or public businesses.  If a state law says that same sex marriage is a right, or if Federal Law which supplants state law says that same sex marriage is a right, then no governmental agency, nor any public service provider has the right to refuse their services to any same sex couple.