You're right. Liberalism IS Fascism plain and simple. It's funny, Liberals are often most guilty of what they accuse others of.

Racism? Liberals are often the most racist.
Homophobic? Ever hear Alec Baldwin?
Anti-Poor? Whose economic policies keep people poor so they keep voting for you?
Fascist? Who's telling private people what they can and can't do with their lives or private property?

"the other woman's husband" was not property stolen from her.
I think it depends on agreement. Personally, I would not agree to be in an open marriage, but as long as the two people in a marriage agree to other arrangements, I'm not sure why that would constitute as immoral. Rand's personal choices are not relevant to the court case discussed here. Ultimately, a judge ruled on perceived harm(no harm was committed against the couple, but the judge's fear that some harm someday might happen with frequency) and perceived threat to society(societies don't have rights only individuals) keep on point

in order to be a bigot, the bakers' would have had to say or demonstrate they had a dislike of the couple because they were gay. They have repeatedly denied this was the case, including the gay couple acknowledging they said as much to them at the time.
I disagree with their decision, but I respect their right to associate freely.
During the presidential campaign, a restaurateur in Florida and Iowa refused to host campaign dinners set up for Romney staffers. Their reason was they were Obama supporters and did not like Romney. One was a mexican restaurant. So, if you were a sympathizing latino supporter of amnesty for illegals, and felt candidate Romney strongly supported deportation and tougher immigration laws, could you see accommodating his staffers as a reputation or personal belief threat? btw, not a peep out of the left on that one and Candidate Romney and his staff graciously picked another restaurant in BOTH cases. No one drug business owners into court over it.

From the facts presented across several articles I've read about this case, the bakers were clear that the fact the couple was gay is not why they turned down the business. It was instead that the cake was to celebrate a gay "marriage." Their religious beliefs do not condone homosexual marriage. as well, the bakers were were politically very active in opposing laws that recognize it. So a) moral beliefs and b) political reputation were behind the bakers' decision-both arguable threats. they were open and honest with the couple stating that it was nothing personal.
Personally, I do not support businesses that have the christian fish symbol on their advertising. It's annoying to me that businesses feel all secure in their dealings if supporting other Christians. You have no idea how that person runs their business unless they have a much more objective reputation than simply "christian" business owner. I am discriminating. I bet you do it all the time.

interesting you should bring this up. The buses were operated by the city governments "public transportation" in those cities which implemented such "laws." In order for such ridiculous "rules" to work, you need collusion with local govts and law enforcement in order to keep enterprising individuals from seizing opportunity. For example, most cities have strict rules about private busing and taxi services.
If my taxi company does not want to pick up people who dress like they are in a gang-maybe yours will-maybe your service costs more to cover your perceived risk in taking that particular fare. I may very well shut the door to my business and say closed if I see a group of thug "looking" individuals come to my door. My loss of business but perhaps another's opportunity.

He's participating only by providing a service for which he is paid, with money. That doesn't denote or imply that he approves or disapproves of anything except being paid for a service he offers, that of baking a cake. He doesn't have to approve of someone's behavior to take their money in exchange for a service.

Either way, it still doesn't address my point. If you're going to render a judgment based on these individuals' conduct, then you are by definition being inconsistent if you're going to judge these folks unworthy of a cake and yet bake a cake for a couple who 'jumped the gun'. I mean, this is just a case of someone whose conscience is unbalanced, if you ask me, even from a Christian perspective.

No, it would still be wrong to force a person to share something that is rightfully theirs. I totally agree that the big issue here is the use of force, as you well illustrated.

Actually, it absolutely can be equated, by Biblical standards. The punishment for the 'wicked' is the same for fornicators and homosexuals. One is therefore not worse than the other. Despite what some people say, there isn't a 'special hell' reserved for anybody according to the Bible, there's only one final end, the so-called 'lake of fire', whatever that may have meant to the authors of the Bible.

You forgot healthcare. I am forced to buy something I do not want from a vendor I do not wish to associate with. I feel owned more and more each day. It is decidedly un-American.
If the govt can force the baker to perform the baker should be allowed to force you to buy his cake. Just like with Obamacare. This is where your logic above leads. Just because YOU don't feel owned, does not mean taxes, clearing the sidewalk of snow (govt enforcement is very inefficient in this particular case-always is), obeying speed limits(also arbitrary and inefficient enforcement) make ME Owned. Note the objective reality of the government owning by these "conventions" as you refer to them and your subjective reality of not "feeling" owned.
"Social contract" is a concept that originates with Locke. It did not allow unbridled govt to impose whatever people vote for. Number 1 thing social contract is to do is to protect property rights.
If I own myself, I own the product of my labor, and I own the right to decide who I associate with. Anything that violates those tenets means I do not own myself. Straightforward logic.