Yes, there is a difference when a group or individual is demanding new rights. For instance, the right to legalize same-sex marriage. That is a right that has never existed in all of human history. This is not to say people of the same sex couldn't get married. They have and did for decades. I was invited by a friend to accompany her to an invitation she got for Bob Paris' wedding. He got married and that was fine. He did not demand that the government force everyone to recognize, accept, and honor that union. Just like Hugh Hefner was for all practical purposes a polygamist. But he just lived his life as such and didn't demand or care what anybody else thought about it. These matters should be left for the people to decide and not a handful of unelected judges. That is the Liberal strategy. When they can't get their way democratically they take it to the courts.
I have no beef in the whole "gay wedding" thing; frankly, I don't care who you marry or how you get off provided that it only involves
consenting adults; beyond that knock yourself out.
The issue, here, or at least how I see it, is that the State confers several "benefits" to married couples: rights of survivorship, the right to make decisions for your spouse if he or she is in the hospital and unable to make such decisions, the ability to file taxes jointly and more.
The government can't force me (an individual) to accept
any marriage and nothing in the current law or jurisprudence changes that. And that's
not at issue. At issue is whether the government can discriminate against people based on who they marry. I don't know if you're gay, but let's say you are. Why should the law, for example, allow your property to flow through to a spouse tax free after your death, but only if that spouse is female?
As for businesses, while I generally think they can't be compelled to do things, they typically require licensing by the State and I think it's reasonable for the State to impose
some requirements on the business. I don't think that gives the State carte blanche to force businesses to do anything and everything but it does give the State the ability to set a baseline. For example, I would be fine with a regulation that says: "you want a license to be a contractor? Fine, but you can't refuse to build a home because of someone's sexual orientation" because sexual orientation is
irrelevant to the task at hand.
In the Masteroiece Cakeshop case, where the bakery didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding it was a case of defending an existing law and right. The customer is in a very real sense acting as an employer. He is hiring someone to do a job. The bakery is in a very real sense acting as an employee offer a set of skills he wishes to sell. Is is not required that an employee be forced to take a job he does not want, again for any reason or no reason.
I agree that the baker in Masterpiece is, broadly, free to turn away business, even if I personally thing that turning customers away is bad business. I don't think it's the government's place to force people to accept others. I think that social pressure and the nature of progress does that just fine.