You didn't. You're playing a word game. The opposite of what you say is correct.
Dress it up with word games and troll as much as you'd like.
You want to force a person to make and decorate a cake against his will and I think that's disgusting, thought policing, etc.
Yes, you were done when you took a hardline position about wanting to force people to action against their wills because you view humans as people who exist to think and do by your will and not their own. You lost all semblance of a position when you started playing word games and injecting red herrings just to try and salvage some sort of non-shit position.
I understand the point of view that businesses that discriminate would be undone by a public backlash even if there were no anti-discrimination laws, but only on a macro-scale. My concern is more about the negative effects discrimination would have on a smaller scale with small businesses in less populated areas. Businesses in metropolitans like, say, New York City or Los Angeles, would obviously feel the erosion of decreased customers and revenue due to the diverse setting and increased chance of negative media attention in that area. But the idea that all businesses would be universally hampered if they're outed as racist or homophobic is unrealistic, in my opinion. The simple fact is that if small businesses in rural Kentucky or Alabama or somewhere similar didn't serve African-Americans or homosexuals, the downsides would be far less pronounced, and maybe even non-existent. I think the negative byproduct of repealing anti-discrimination laws in that it leads businesses in backwards parts of the country to reject a certain demographic, thus fostering a gross environment and create enclaves of racism and homophobia, is too much of a downside. You can claim that there is already a racist enclave present if the results of repealed anti-discrimination laws were accurate to my aforementioned description—but I believe the repeal would only exacerbate the problem and further isolate minorities, as well as increase a cultural permittance of racist and homophobic views.
Additionally, another unfortunate truth is that those who aren't part of the demographic being discriminated against, usually, just... don't care about reducing their service to places that discriminate. It doesn't affect them personally, so they're apathetic. I've seen this admitted plenty of times by the same people who claim that racist and homophobic businesses would go under if outed as such. You can show me plenty of cases where people did care enough about a discriminating business to withdraw their service, and I believe it, but the fact remains that many, many people don't care.
Those are just some of my reasons as to why I think anti-discrimination laws should remain in implementation in general. I'm sympathetic to the case against anti-discrimination laws as it pertains to artistic expression, but I still haven't completely made up my mind on that part of the conversation.
I wouldn't, at best I'd talk about the hypocrisy of it. But I think if "no men" or "no blacks" signs for places began to crop up those places would just end up losing business. Their views, in the end, would just do them harm.
For instance, this baker stopped making wedding cakes all together despite the fact a good chunk of his revenue came from them.
__________________ "I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas
One counter I've heard is that you want to put prejudiced employers out in the open so people they don't like will know not to work there, and they don't have to hire people they'll treat badly anyway.