[quote]It's less about being able to set your own standards and the right of the employer/ person and more about restricting people life choices based on who they are.[/quote] There's a fundamental difference. On one hand, the employer is "restricting" applicants by denying some of them a job at his establishment. Nobody is forced to do anything against their will. The applicant can move on, and the employer has to continue his search for skilled labor. If we use the state to determine who the employer can and cannot hire, then we've introduced coercion into the equation. The employer is now forced (let's not delude ourselves - state power isn't something that can be opted out of) to possibly hire outside of his preferences. Nobody is being forcibly restricted unless you legislate the employer's standards for him. [quote]It's very easy, as a straight white male in England, to sit here and tell you how you're wrong for supporting the right to deny people basic human rights just because the person their asking it from believes a certain thing[/quote] Nobody is being denied rights. If I own a business, I'm operating with my labor and my property. An applicant offers to sell me their labor, and I decline. Nobody's rights were violated. If the state forces me to hire that employee, then my rights are violated. I lose some control over my labor and my property.

But the issue is when people do it over race or sexuality, which in the examples you gave in the original post had that iin there. A belief is all well and good but a Christian can't expect to be respected and then deny a couple a wedding cake because they're lesbians. That's hypocrisy.