So your solution is to FORCE these "bigots" to associate with people they don't want to? On which end of this transaction is FORCE applied?
1. The person who insists that they have a "right" to be accommodated by someone who does not want that associations, or
2. The person who exercises their "right" not to associate or accommodate someone with whom they have disagreements?
Freedom means that I am free from coercive acts by government to force me to do something against my will, when my will does not involve coercion of someone else. I.e. - I am free ONLY if I am able to act on my own beliefs and conscience, using my property as I desire, as long as I do not force someone else to violate their conscience or infringe on their (cont.)
There has been a demonstrable move away from Judeo-Christian faith and practice in Europe for a number of years. Just ask British hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull.
What was once respected as authoritative is now considered Victorian, and what was widely embraced as a moral guide has been dismissed with the morals in which it guided people…all in the name of tolerance, mind you.
And so the Bulls have experienced the irony of ironies that Christianity is being forced out of the room by those who claim tolerance as their guiding principle.
They used to be poked fun at...
property. If you do not agree with "my" position that I will uphold my Christin beliefs and not rent a room to an unmarried couple or homosexual couple, do you not violate your own conscience by wanting associate with me? Isn't your action - forcing me to rent to you - an act of aggression by you against my beliefs, conscience, and property rights? If I am a "bigot", do I not just harm myself and my potential income if I discriminate against you for whatever reason? You have other options, so you are not harmed.
When the government forces me to violate my conscience, then I have no other options except to leave the country. Ask the Puritans about that. You might have heard about them in school.
Freedom is not Force