Listen, there is a distinction between business and the property it is in.
The business can always move -- and if the owners feel strongly about not making cookies for _______ then they SHOULD move.
Another issue is any specifications that are in the contract. Does it allow for them to ... "descriminate?"
Yeah. No. There's no reason the business should have to cede any of its day-to-day operational authority to their landlord. It doesn't matter who their landlord is, and it doesn't matter if you or I or some university twit or city buerea-tyrant approves of the way they operate their business.
The argument I'm hearing is that because the business bought its property rights from the city, it doesn't deserve to receiver all of those rights. I think this is insulting and grossly unfair. It doesn't matter who they're leasing from, it matters what's in the lease. So far I've seen nothing that indicates the lease prohibits them from declining anyone's business for any reason.
If anything, the fact that they lease from a government entity ought to put the business on
more solid ground, not less. The business owners made a decision based on their religious convictions. A man's religious convictions must never put him at a disadvantage with the government.
And what gives any else the right to tell these people where they can and can't run their business? You aren't the one risking your livelihood on these sorts of decisions, they are. And their business certainly doesn't exist for the purpose of appeasing y'alls PC moral dictates. So why don't you all butt and mind your own business.
I'm rapidly losing patience with Americans who aren't willing to let their neighbors make their own decisions, run their own businesses, and generally live their lives the way they see fit. I'm especially bothered by the so-called freedom lovers and libertarians who will preach at me about respecting their freedom, and then turn around and deny other people freedom whenever they feel like it.