You better learn to discriminate between food and poison or you won’t live too long. A bartender is forced by the law to discriminate and to refuse to serve people when the customer is either intoxicated or should be intoxicated because they have consumed to much alcohol.
What’s the difference between refusing to serve someone because the law forbids serving them and refusing to serve someone for a different reason? Or can government force someone to serve someone?
Of course government can force people to either serve someone or prohibit them from serving people. It’s done both. the rule is” “Government is Force” therefore forcing people to serve or exclude others is expected from government. Government after all can force military people to kill others.
Same for hating evil. Hatred of the good is wrong but hatred of the bad is good. Hate can have survival value. But hate speech is not protected because it’s hateful, not because it’s speech. It’s claimed by government that not all speech is protected. “Fighting Words” is an exception to free speech because government never heard of “sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.” The flip side is “but words can break my heart”.
Hate because of a person’s race is taboo. Hating people who hate black people is thought to be a good type of hate and is therefore protected even though it’s also hate speech. But it’s protected hate, not protected speech, right? Not exactly. Confused? You may just have to remain confused as you follow the laws. Ignorance of the law is no excuse to violate it.
Does hate have a moral basis? Is hate a precursor of assault? Is it beneficial to hate? Remember that the Supreme Court considers certain words so provocative that the law considers them “Fighting Words” and prohibits them.
The law wraps itself in various enigma’s. The Supreme Court forbids pornography even though it cannot define it. “I know it when I see it” is how the Supremes ruled and so far, that’s that.