The popular legal sentiment is that if a business offers its services to the public, it must provide that service to everyone — and discrimination trumps religious convictions. Photographers who are in the business of taking photos of weddings must take photos of gay weddings, too. For all we know, if asked to shoot the wedding between a couple of dogs, they'd have to do that, too.

You're probably outraged, but think of it this way: If a restaurant refused to serve a certain race (black, Asian, Hispanic), almost anyone would object.

Or is it the same thing?

In the three aforementioned cases, eHarmony made a business decision to pursue the heterosexual market, and the photographer and doctors made moral/religious decisions not to provide services that violated their convictions. Theirs was not a question of racism or bigotry (even though some will say it is).

When does one person's right to do something trump someone's right not to do something? Does the practice of one's religion — and the right to practice it — extend to the workplace and in everything he or she does?

Dr. Catherine Kim, a California obstetrician-gynecologist who refuses to perform abortions because she considers it immoral in her Christian faith, told the Ventura County Star, "Just like they have the right to choose, I have a right to choose. The doctor has the right to act and practice according to his or her convictions."

In the U.S., the majority decides what morality is, either through the popular vote or representation or the courts. It decided that alcohol was illegal, then legal. It decided that plural marriage was illegal. It decided that abortion is legal, with varying restrictions placed on it by some states. Thirty states decided gay marriage is illegal.

The Supreme Court or some form of popular vote will ultimately have to be used to decide the issues raised in the three cases cited above, because this is not the end of it, but only the beginning.

Given those rulings, where do we go from here? If we take the legal reasoning of those rulings and take them to their logical conclusion, there is almost nothing that is too fantastical or ridiculous to imagine.

Will Ebony Magazine be compelled to write more stories about Caucasians?

Will polygamists force eHarmony to include a Web site for their niche?

Will businesses be forced to serve certain segments of the population even when it's unprofitable?

Will the Catholic and Mormon churches be forced to wed lesbian couples?

Will someone sue Victoria's Secret because it does not make sizes for transvestites?

Will doctors be compelled to perform abortions (some groups are already pushing this agenda)?

Will marriage counselors be forced to counsel lesbian partners?

Will Japanese restaurants be forced to offer, say, a kosher menu?

We've entered strange new territory here, and there's no turning back.

---

Doug Robinson's column runs on Tuesdays. E-mail: drob@desnews.com