+1 for supporting a baker drawn into a legal/media battle by repressive tolerance, but only insofar as it helps cover his legal expenses.

Yeah, Teri, "tolerance of intolerance" is a good thing, right?

Wait 'til the Taliban and Islamists decide YOU'RE in a group that should be eliminated if YOU don't convert to THEIR beliefs.

As it was said... "but then there was nobody left to speak up for ME... and they took me away, too."

Beware unintended consequences of "good ideas." Sure as hell most of the government doesn't...

This could create a secondary confectionary market for homosexuals... have ANY bakery "make the cake," then take it to another company to add the names and little statuettes on the top.

You can get the quality of the "base product" PLUS any "custom options" you care to add.

Works well in SO many other markets... (got an app for that?)

Hm?

"Their own illness..."????????????????

Ah, the truth comes out. And the religious base of it, and the hatred. You've outed yourself.

Sad.

Did I contradict myself on my voting habits?

In this case, if there are flaws in Libertarianism that are irreconcilable with Objectivism, and if Libertarianism is still the closest approximation to an Objectivist political agenda, it stands to reason that correcting Libertarianism is a higher priority than rehashing Maph's argument for democracy ad nauseam.

I'll take back my vote if the counter voter takes back their counter vote.

Judge Spencer said “At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses.This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

The cost to society be DAMNED! If this man wants to refuse service to anyone for any reason it is his choice. He is willingly not accepting payment for his services and he should be able to willingly then refuse service. I would refuse to comply with these orders on the grounds that I am not a slave. I can feel the steam raising off my head over this one. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

Remember the good old days when you could refuse service to people, for any reason. They could have gone elsewhere BUT NOOOO, they had to rise a stink. The government just like homosexuals have got to get into our face. Because they have RIGHTS, total BULL S.

well put!

I'm not sure why anyone would make an issue of this. Would you want to order a cake (or anything edible) from someone who didn't like you? This sounds vaguely like the sort of lawsuit that is filed because "it's not the money--it's the principle", and of course it's always the money. The couple who ordered the cake are also fighting for the right to subsidize someone who does not like them. I certainly wouldn't do anything like that.

A private business is private property. If you do not like the attitude or ideas of the property owner, do not patronize the business. And if you wish, do what you can to make other customers aware of what they are subsidizing by their patronage. Let each look to his or her own conscience.

Ayn Rand wrote on this subject with regard to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (I believe the essay was entitled "Racism"). The Civil Rights Act was enacted in the belief that racial bigotry could be abolished by legislation. Looking back from 50 years' distance, wouldn't it have been far better to let those who wanted to run "whites only" restaurants, etc. do so, and let all who pass their places of business know what fools they are? I certainly would not patronize such a place--who would? It would be far better to be able to see who did, and know to avoid such people.

The man has a right to be a bigot. I've never said it was moral, logical, or otherwise.

If you say why should one care what happens with the product of his work, I'll give examples of why someone should care. Simple as that.

This whole thread isn't about the "morality" of the shop keeper. Its about whether the government, or society has a right to force anyone to serve someone they choose not to do business with.

What if the KKK approached a watermelon farmer to buy a truckload of melons that they were going to use in parade the following week. The farmer, knowing of the stereotype that says black folks love watermelon, refused the sale because he was concerned about being seen as tacitly promoting a viewpoint that he found morally offensive.

Would that be ok with you, or should the KKK take it to the Supreme Court so they can force the farmer to sell watermelons in order to make a mockery of a group of people?

(I'm not saying I believe gay marriage is a mockery)

That's an interesting question. If we remove "same sex marriage" and substitute "Liberalism", of which "same sex marriage" is a result, I think one can easily quantify how our lives have changed.

+1 for comedic relief ;)

"The issue for me here is, how is it moral to refuse to trade with someone on the basis of something you just don't happen to like about them?"

Nobody said that is was "moral" to do so. What we've said is that forcing them to serve is immoral. The concern is not with the man's belief system, or lack of action. The concern is with the government denying someone the right to choose their own values and forcing them to serve someone else who stands contradictory to them.

Imagine a Klan group in full regalia going to the local black owned BBQ joint. I'd imagine that the owners would like to have the right to refuse service right?

You alluded to something that I think is important. You said "If this was the only baker around and nobody else knew how to bake cakes... But cake is cake". Does this mean if I know the cure for cancer its ok to coerce me to share it, or that you'd be justified in torturing it out of me? How many men does it take, to properly and democratically vote the panties off an unwilling woman?

At what point is it right to deny a person their rights for the unearned gain of others?

It sounds like you are are arguing for majority rule. I think I am right in saying that the majority (including Objectivists) sees it as wrong, stupid and/or irrational for "this" baker to deny service to "this" gay couple. An argument for majority rule, however, is an argument for democracy which leads to oligarchy and/or monarchy. We are still a republic, and as such, it is the rule of law, not the rule of the majority that governs us. It is precisely the rule of law that slowly, and inexorably removes prejudice against minorities from the majority. Yes, it sounds backwards, and I can see how you might not believe that you are arguing in favor socialism under oligarchy, but if you follow the argument for government intervention through to its ultimate consequences, you must see that we will all (gays included) be sacrificing our freedoms if the government is expected to intervene in every case like this.

Does an upholsterer and a charter member of PETA have the "right" not to be forced to work with a hide of leather that someone brings and wants it installed on a footstool?

Belief systems (rational or not) are yours to own and exercise. As long as your actions aren't aggressive, your beliefs should be accepted by others.

It's too bad it doesn't go that way for Christians. The LGBT community needs to learn to hear and understand that the word "no" is simply a boundary.

Right on Hiraghm.