Nonsense. prejudice = judging before experiencing. Until you bite into an apple, you haven't tested whether it's worth buying or not.
You have to judge by its appearance, and if present, its sell-by date. That's pre-judging.

He probably figured the harm done or discouragement done to other patrons was greater than the financial opportunity they represented.

What about businesses that won't sell to minors? Like... liquor stores?

Sounds to me an opportunity for someone to open a competing business that *wouldn't* discriminate against whatever minority seems to be under-served.

Would that include, say, illegal aliens? Mafia?

Sad, but their choice. I see no problem with that.

I don't know, and there are too many postings to go through and find it. Heck, it might have merely been me that said to look up the definitions for prejudice, which includes bigotry.
These terms have been loaded with unnecessary connotations of evil. While they are most often used in connection to people, that is not their only usage. Just saying that discrimination, per se, is not a problem.
And in particular, people discriminate all the time. While some might call it choice, it is choice based on some criteria - either acknowledged or not.
We are on a slippery slope that is removing our ability to make those choices - to eliminate discrimination. Choice is fundamental to liberty and freedom, restricting that or eliminating it altogether eliminates our freedom. I resist that at every opportunity.

Lawsuits can be expensive. There are false charges of discrimination too. I am not always walking around thinking about the color of people's skin or is that a gay person, when I am forming sentences because I am not in those categories which brings up a different issue. There is a hypersensitivity but not in the case of the florist.

I'm aware of the fact that procreation is only possible between members of the opposite sex (though they need not necessarily have opposite chromosomes), but I don't see how that has anything to do with this particular law.

What exactly are you trying to say?

I've seen reports about business owners who engage in discrimination before, and it doesn't ever cause them to go out of business, since the only people who ever seem to give a crap are the ones who happen to be members of the group that's being discrimated against. No one else ever cares. And since it's usually only minorities that ever really face genuine discrimination (at least in the U.S. - South Africa is a different story), they typically don't constitute a large enough percentage of the business owner's revenue to have any significant impact on him financially. The argument that discrimination automatically leads to bankruptcy is an unfounded claim with no evidence to support it, and a lot to refute it. So of course those who are victims of discrimination are going to try and combat it using other methods, as boycotts alone have been proven to be ineffective.

I say that a business owner has the right to refuse the business of anyone - for any reason that they choose. Not merely on religious grounds.

How are individuals harmed? They have the same ability to choose another provider.

Please review the definitions for prejudice and bigotry.

Judgment merely identifies choice. I am identifying more than choice, but actual discrimination. And saying that there is nothing wrong in so doing. You seem to want to shrink from the terms. I see no problem with them.

That was politics not religion. I had to take on a few people about that very report. Shame on them, for trying to pass such a law, then they threw property rights at me. I had to remind them of the people that were refused service at cafe's in the 50's. If you sell lollipops you sell them to everyone at the same price when there is no added cost.. If you are a private organization like a club you get to choose your members but, you have to put your rules out there and outsiders can't dictate those rules. If you sell your property you can't choose based on race etc. If any person prevents you from conducting your business, you can have them removed or ask them to leave. If you are forced to purchase an item and that action goes against your religious beliefs there should be separate riders to that product that allows all of your employees to purchase any rider they choose.You would have to have an option to give all your employees money in their checks to let them choose the rider they want to purchase. It didn't need to be that complicated, They claim they were trying to prevent people from suing a business for religious objection.I don't appreciate it one bit. Tell the government to get out of the way they had no business there in the first place.

Correct. That was my point.