In 1993 the federal government passed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law was intended to protect Native Americans in danger of losing their jobs because of religious ceremonies that involved the illegal drug peyote. Since then 20 states have passed their own versions of the “religious freedom” laws and 12 more have introduced the legislation this year. Supporters of the law argue that the government shouldn't force religious businesses and churches to serve customers who participate in lifestyles contrary to their owners’ beliefs. Proponents of the law argue that the political context has changed since 1992 and states are now passing their own versions of the law with the intent of discriminating against gay and lesbian couples.
There's a fine line here - refusing service at a restaurant to a gay couple is not okay. Requesting a different seat on an airplane because you're forbidden to touch women you're not related to should be accommodated.
In cases of services where a essential service is being offered, such as access to groceries, medicine, health care, and the like, there should not be a license for discrimination. However, in the case of artisans, florists, cake makers, and other non-essential services, there is more reasonable room for flexibility about their right to deny service for requests which violate thier personal beliefs and convictions.
I fell as though this question could be tackled in many different ways. I feel that for some religions it would be safer for the owner, if they would like to, remove someone from a particular relgion from their establishment. Like Judaism, and Islamic beliefs.
Business owners shouldn´t be allowed to deny service to anyone, whether they have different beliefs or not. However, if the customer causes a scene by projecting their beliefs loudly and impolitely, then the owner has the right to deny them service.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.