I see you saying things like 'judge them by the merits of their arguments', and 'intellectual honesty'. But the problem is, I don't trust that you're intellectually honest. I don't think you actually do much logical evaluation when it comes to a case like this; you're already predisposed towards being on the side of the gay guys, and not liking the christians. Well, fine. But I don't believe that you're coming to your conclusions through reason and logic, as you claim to; my impression is that you're just declaring that the chain of evil obviously ends with the people you didn't like to begin with, and their arguments don't need to be refuted because they're not in good faith.
Meanwhile, it's alright for you to categorically refuse to give service to someone for another kind of social identity.
Fine... I just don't get the feeling I should rely on you as a source of 'good faith' arguments about this stuff. You seem to have a pretty big axe to grind.
I'm not really an anti-abortionist. You can replace 'child' with 'fetus', if you like; my point is just that the word itself applies to any preference over world states.
What are you on about? 8chan is pretty damn grassroots. The people on /pol/ definitely don't see themselves as backed by the institutions of social control; in their mythology, the insitutions of social control (eg. the mainstream media, Silicon Valley, banks) are all left-wing, "pozzed", and their enemies. They consider themselves a hated minority... because they are. What big institutions are backing 8chan?!
The baker's argument was that it wasn't the same service. They would have baked them a cake; but they didn't cakes with "jim and john's wedding" written on them, in the same way you wouldn't bake a cake with the 14 words on it, even if you'd bake a cake for Richard Spencer.