Christians: Morally Bankrupt on Rights

Our discrimination laws are in place because some people actually need to be told to be moral.
Imagine if there were no discrimination laws and you were told; "I am sorry we don't serve Wogs" or "I am sorry we don't serve Blacks". How would you feel to be part of a society where racism and discrimination were tacitly supported.

This is the society the christians want us to go back to.

After reading an article as enlightening as a Petrol Prices segment on a Current Affairs programme, I felt obliged to offer some insight when the author and his flock are so obviously lacking.
I am talking about an article on belief.net, home to the irrational.
This particular article presents an argument that gay marriage, and indeed rights, are unconstitutional as they occlude religious freedoms; such as the religious freedom to be homophobic, racist & bigoted.
This is all because of the unfounded belief in a supposed divine text written in an era of genocide, racism, clanism and ignorance.

In light of this, it is obvious whose rights are more important if such a conflict exists between gay rights and people who believe in fairy-tales from a time of archaic moral conscience.

The actual argument presented by the author takes place in a shop.
The author argues that a "traditional" (religious-solipsist) shop owner should have the right to offer his "married couples discount" only to couples he sees as married, after all; it is his shop.
In other words, the ignorant reasons he has to not respect gay marriage or gay rights should be protected at all costs.
Why then can't a "traditional" American segregate his shop and prohibit African-Americans or Hispanics from entering?
The answer is because there is no good reason to think of African-American's or Hispanics as any different to any person of any "race". We are equal.

The same applies to homosexuals, the shop owner (like with African-Americans) should not have the right to hold onto ignorant concepts about race, gender or sexuality. If he struggles with morality, the State should force him to act as if he was moral.
Biologists, sociologists, anthropologist, psychologists and other secular disciplines concerned with evidence-based-reasoning see no problems with homosexuality or homosexual marriage; so with no evidence against gay marriage or gay rights, why should anyone be allowed to hold onto prejudicial and bigoted ideas about sexuality, race or gender?

Belief, the positive affirmation of something founded on no evidence, is not a free ticket to racism, bigotry or discrimination.
Especially when your opponents are armed with tonnes of evidence, dwarfing yours.