This is nothing but a pineapple upside down wedding cake. Only not as delicious. It is the very same thing as a business bringing harm by discriminating in commerce by refusing service because she is using her purchase to bring harm. She's allowed to buy a gun, or not; she's just not allowed to shoot the shopkeeper with it.
jeepguySD saidWhile it is offensively sanctimonious, contrary to Jesus' own example of tolerance, and just simply ignorant in the most pejorative sense, this woman has the right to withhold her patronage from a business with which she objects, just as I avoid spending money at businesses that I know to be anti-LGBT.
Even so, Michael Niri's response was nicely done.
You seem well motivated but also you seem to be trying to force some impossible balance.
Besides that I'm not sure this ever rose to the level of patronage (seems he was never seeking her support) but a matter merely of consumerism (she was buying product), the difference being that while someone has the right to live as they please, to be as bigoted as they want, have they the right to inflict their lifestyle upon others which is typical of proselytizers. No.
If as a consumer you don't like (insert race here) people, you don't do business with them. End of story. You don't tell a person that you are not doing business with him because he is black. I just realized you're Asian so I'd like my deposit back? No. There's no balancing this with someone's rights to commerce or to live life as they please.
She had the right to not engage to begin with or to simply walk away from her deposit and her purchase. Nothing gives her the right to use her purchase to inflict harm upon others. There is nothing here to balance.
She's the one who stepped off that cliff.