Not 'allowed'. Anyone with an ounce of decency should realize they shouldn't have anything to do with KF
As for the rest: yes, great, people who do [thing I don't like] are scoundrels. A slow clap for you.
> The right supports the right of private businesses to decide who to serve unless they are kicking out right wingers in which case we need government intervention to guarantee a platform.
i usually caution folks to speak of concrete things, so that you're not led astray and forget what you're defending
But in this specific case: I mentioned that "it's a crime if done to me, but totally fine if done to thee" is pretty much universal, and you'll find it in most large ideological groups. Going "the other side does that (but not mine, we're better than that)" is cheap tribalism that is based only in wishful thinking.
what i implied was specific and concrete: KF should not be served by anyone
you're the one marketing a generic and abstract “no duty to serve”, because you can't defend the specific and concrete actions taken by KF
edit: i'll also happily make the concrete argument that cake shops shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against gays/lesbians/etc, while at the same time saying no-one should be allowed to serve KF
these two points of view are perfectly consistent with one another -- confusion only arises if you try to think of abstract nonsense that must apply to both situations
that is a strawman of your own creation