I normally get along much better with someone who opposed *all* anti-discrimination laws on principled libertarian grounds (even if I disagreed with them), than with someone who supported laws against racial discrimination but opposed laws against orientation-based discrimination. I’ve met people in both categories, and people in the latter category are far more likely to harbor some animus towards gays.

You shouldn’t discriminate in your principled support for legalized discrimination :)

I also challenge your assertion about gay people having greater incentives to game the system. It’s the sort of thing you might be able to truly know if it wasn’t for the fact that straight people with children get divorced if gay couples could not adopt – but since they do and they can – how do you claim knowledge? Just based on intuition? Not good enough.

I can’t prove this, but it seems to me just from casual observation that there are more gay men (at least in the United States) than lesbian women, so that’s a plus for straight men if true.

And it is here that we bump into the philosophical limitations of the idea that we are (or should be) unbound by any moral laws we haven’t chosen. Most would probably agree that not selling food to someone simply because of race is wrong. Most would probably also agree that it is proper that such discrimination not be allowed in our society. One explanation is that just by belonging to a community we inherit certain moral obligations that are not necessarily voluntary. Sort of like having to endure that extended visit from your in-laws…;-). We not only sell food to people different than us because we want to, we also sell it because our society has deemed that for the common good we must.

For the record, I love Asian women, but I don’t think anybody would claim there are non-voluntary obligations imposed by society requiring that one must date them.

This is not the point. The point is to decide in what areas of activity regulations would apply. If there were no foodstores, you can still have a regulation saying “All food stores must not discriminate”. This is not the same as saying “there must be a food store”

I can see a problem with defining what areas can in principle be monopolised. Is it possible to monopolise all packs of cards, so a bridge club must be regulated? I would say not, but the distinction will become fuzzy. However, it seems to work beter than I had first thoght it would.