Actually, I think you got that backwards.
My position was that Licensed Professionals can/should be held to a higher standard, but it got conflated with people like celebrants who are licensed, but not what I’d call professionals as such.
“abolishing” - nuh.
Just trying out an idea here, but it seems like there’s a definable boundary condition.
The law is such a blunt instrument. As we’ve previously agreed, all law is backed by government sponsored violence. I think the corollary to that is that we should only encode law where we can justify the use of that violence. So, I ask myself what kind of discrimination justifies the use of government sponsored violence, and the main answer I get is
“anything to do with denial of essential products or services”.
This would mean any discrimination that leads even in part to denial of access to generally available food, drink, ablutions, housing, power, government services, health services, education, work, internet, banking, transport … etc. Typically, the professionals thing comes into this.
What sits outside of that?
Basically culture and free association, because this is what we need to move forward as a culture.
Choosing not to privately associate with someone should not be unlawful discrimination.
Choosing not to perform a creative work for someone should not be unlawful discrimination.
Choosing not to license my creative work to someone should not be unlawful discrimination.
Choosing not to provide a religious service to someone should not be unlawful discrimination.
Choosing not to have my name/reputation associated with a group should not be unlawful discrimination.
Critique or parody should be fair game (US Copyright even has a Fair Use exemption for that).
And the cake thing. Blessed are the cake makers.