It precisely addresses the point. As I see it, we are talking about an ideological distinction between statism and liberty. And I'll explain what I mean.
what we're talking about is not putting civil rights up to a vote. if we had voted on whether or not to allow interracial marriage in Virginia in 1967 or to integrate the schools after 1956, just what do you think "the people" would have chosen? what do you think would have happened if the citizens of 19th century New York had been asked to put their ability to discriminate against Irish in employment to the vote? after all, you couldn't trust them, Bridget and Paddy were always drunk, always fighting, not good for business. it is absolutely the right of good Protestant business owners to determine who does and who does not work for them, and it's just too much of a risk to hire Irish given their past track record.
I disagree fundamentally with employment (so-called) 'anti-discrimination' legislation. So, for the sake of argument, I simply do not agree that these Protestant business owners should have been legally compelled to employ Irish workers against their will (i.e., the will of the Protestant business owners).
After all, it is, or rather was, THEIR businesses. Or, alternatively, I do not agree that Irish Catholic business owners should be, or should have been,
legally compelled to employ WASP's. You as a liberal presumably disagree with this approach. And that's fine.
or, do we agree that people have basic rights regardless of whatever differences there are, that sexual orientation is as immutable and unchosen a human characteristic as race and gender, and can be demonstrated that it is entirely harmless and in fact the only harm that is done in regards to sexual orientation are those that are discriminated against on the basis of it, and thusly, we seek to protect those in the minority from the prejudices of the majority, that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law regardless of what the masses of bigots might think.
You can't legislate against bigotry. You might want to, but it's pointless, counterproductive and anti liberty (and I know I might be coming across a little Ayn Randian here).
I have the right to life, and freedom of expression, and to give my labour freely.
I do not have the right to compel an unwilling employer to employ me.
Do you think a gay nightclub should be compelled, against its will, to employ heterosexuals to fulfil an equality quota? Let's say the nightclub has 50 staff, and is required to employ at least 50% heteros.
What if said nightclub is situated in a very conservative state or country? What if it can't find any non-homophobic heterosexuals? Is it right for the state to COMPEL them to employ homophobic bigots? What then?