Inherent in the right to own is the right to sell on one’s own terms. Or not sell. There is no right to buy.
And why wouldn’t a seller sell? There is no benefit to not selling. If a transaction is unencumbered and voluntary, both buyer and seller benefit and benefit equally. “Allowing” a shopkeeper to forego a transaction because of the some religious objection is an answer without a question. The issue is freedom; if not religious freedom then economic.
Perhaps if bargain hunters understood that all transactions are voluntary from both sides, they’d shop with better comportment. (Is there anything uglier than a holiday shopper with a sense of entitlement?) To some, stores are nothing but government-run warehouses distributing goods at the direction of the politburo, and their fellow man merely a cog in the machinery of state.
Fears of rampant discrimination are unwarranted. Money is money, after all; and any business that fails to conduct business goes out of business. Hate is more self-destructive than destructive.
Man is either free, or not. The loss of one freedom will eventuate the loss of others. He who would take away my liberty, would take away everything else – noted Locke. Freedoms are interdependent, and alike in one respect: They only exist where tyranny is absent.
The aim of certain protected classes to force their acceptance on others is actually a loss of freedom in exchange for recognition. And the freedom lost is their own.