The pro gay marriage crowd in their arguments said that this kind of thing would not happen. Well?
After this discussion has gone for awhile, I wanted to clarify my above question: The slippery slope argument.. just going to post some links here so they are easy to reference... let the conversation continue:
Twenty-one other states and the District of Columbia have similar laws. Greg Johnson, a law professor at Vermont Law School, said the suit could set a precedent as more states legalize same-sex marriage. Currently, same-sex marriage is legal in six states and the District of Columbia, all of which protect gay men and lesbians in their public-accommodations laws.
“I think this case could set an important precedent not only for Vermont but for other states with marriage equality,” Professor Johnson said, noting that lawsuits like this are rare. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20vermont.html?_r=0
In early 2012, a Lexington, Kentucky printing company called Hands On Originals refused to produce t-shirts for the LGBT pride festival. Later that year, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission determined there was probable cause to investigate a charge of discrimination. This week, a hearing examiner recommended that the Commission rule that Hands On Originals did, in fact, violate the nondiscrimination law. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/10/08/3577721/lexington-t-shirt-discrimination/
The potential threat to religious freedom, however, is at least worth examining because it could directly impact people other than those entering same-sex unions. The supposed threat here is that laws allowing same-sex marriage will require religious officials to solemnize marriages to which they object based on religious doctrine, require churches to make facilities equally available for same-sex marriage ceremonies, or at the least expose them to civil lawsuits for discriminating against same-sex marriages.[i] There is something personally at stake for religious officials and clergy in this case. Even most supporters of same-sex marriage would agree that this would be a significant transgression of First Amendment religious freedom as well as bad public policy. However, as one examines the various laws allowing same-sex marriage or other unions, this seems to be a threat in only theory and not in practice.
LAKEWOOD, Colo. — Jack Phillips is a baker whose evangelical Protestant faith informs his business. There are no Halloween treats in his bakery — he does not see devils and witches as a laughing matter. He will not make erotic-themed pastries — they offend his sense of morality. And he declines cake orders for same-sex weddings because he believes Christianity teaches that homosexuality is wrong.
Mr. Phillips, whose refusal two years ago to make a cake for a gay male couple has led to a court battle now getting underway, is one of a small number of wedding vendors across the country who are emerging as the unlikely face of faith-based resistance to same-sex marriage. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/us/cant-have-your-cake-gays-are-told-and-a-rights-battle-rises.html
What does this have to do with the issue at hand? What does this have to with Incest?...
The relationship is plain to see.. if you can override a law or exploit a lack of it you force an issue.. They concern a "specific" service and not ALL service which you do find in race.