U.S. law is most friendly toward freedom of speech already so it makes sense to talk about U.S. law.
As far as why it matters if opinions change, that's because no laws are absolute. The law will have to have accommodations for certain scenarios, one of which you already alluded to. For example, if someone is a Nazi and has several Jewish subordinates. Well one day he might believe that no Jews shall ever be promoted and the next day he might believe that Jews can be promoted. Then the next day he may believe that no Jews shall be promoted again. You can't anticipate that in a way that the law could realistically handle.
You say that no one should be removed from a restaurant as long as they aren't being "disruptive." Well answer this, who decides the meaning of "disruptive?" You have just created another loophole.
And guess what, under current U.S. federal law it is possible for a restaurant to declare no gay meetings, because sexual orientation is not yet recognized as a protected class. It is ironic to me that you are (unknowingly I'm sure) advocating for increased rights for bigots before advocating for increased rights for gays. But this is just another one of the problems with your position.
U.S. law is most friendly toward freedom of speech already so it makes sense to talk about U.S. law.
As far as why it matters if opinions change, that's because no laws are absolute. The law will have to have accommodations for certain scenarios, one of which you already alluded to. For example, if someone is a Nazi and has several Jewish subordinates. Well one day he might believe that no Jews shall ever be promoted and the next day he might believe that Jews can be promoted. Then the next day he may believe that no Jews shall be promoted again. You can't anticipate that in a way that the law could realistically handle.
You say that no one should be removed from a restaurant as long as they aren't being "disruptive." Well answer this, who decides the meaning of "disruptive?" You have just created another loophole.
And guess what, under current U.S. federal law it is possible for a restaurant to declare no gay meetings, because sexual orientation is not yet recognized as a protected class. It is ironic to me that you are (unknowingly I'm sure) advocating for increased rights for bigots before advocating for increased rights for gays. But this is just another one of the problems with your position.