A ban you choose to participate in (since it by definition only affects people who choose to be devout Christians to the extent that even interacting with homos

A ban you choose to participate in (since it by definition only affects people who choose to be devout Christians to the extent that even interacting with homosexuals is forbidden, a philosophy which I'm not at all confident is in the bible, who also choose to own a business devoted to serving the public) seems more tolerant than a ban which is forced upon you (since nobody chooses their sexual orientation). Do you disagree? I'm not arguing that it's completely tolerant, but unfortunately we have a case where one person completely refuses to tolerate the mere existence of another so I think it's clear that one hundred percent toleration is off the table. Since one person is choosing to be intolerant and the other isn't, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to place restrictions on the person making the choice; if they feel that the inconveniences are too much, they're obviously welcome to rethink their choice. You can't really ask that of a gay person.