as usual, the govt gets to pick morality? if so, why not ban abortion? it's a discriminatory practice

you discriminate every day of your life. It's natural. Whether or not you are moral in your discriminating is another issue. If you put a gun to someone's head and force association, you will effectively add to resentment and illogical thinking. and you will create slaves. You are for slavery, maph

You are absolutely correct k. Should a vegan restaurant owner be forced to serve steak? In New Jersey in '08, a bakery owner refused to make a cake with Adolph Hitler Campbell on it. Nary a peep out of the ACLU.

According to Objectivism you certainly do have the right to be immoral. One has to be conscious by choice, one has to be moral by choice. One cannot initiate force to create morality, lest you fall for the "ends justifying the means". There are so many problems with your statement here. If you don't have the "right" to choose between morality and immorality, you have admitted you have no right to choose your values. You can't arbitrarily declare a value to be moral, but you certainly can and should have the right to choose them, and Objectivism holds up that stance.

“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 'hurt'... (Oh whoa whoa whoa...)
As I keep saying, over and over and over, this screaming "discrimination" whenever a business owner doesn't capitulate against their own belief system with whomever walks through the doors of their business does NOT have the affect they are hoping for. I would venture to say it has the opposite affect. Live and let live...unless you refuse to make me a cake and then I'll ruin you!

I do agree with that. But as a business owner, I still cringe at the prospect of the govt telling me who I may or may not associate with. For example, people who actively supported an Obama as President. Not as a feature of retaliation, more like-will this client perform on his end rationally and consistently.
Refusing your services to those you perceive harming you may well be a good offense in the intellectual war. Now, I dismiss their claim, if they say harm-but I absolutely support their right to choose association.

"The tragedy is not that we are born tabula rasa, but that so many die that way." - Nathaniel Branden.

I agree with you statements until the last one. what does "pre-industrial " have to do with anything? They are exercising their right to free association. that is not political per se. and I do not think they are being rational, so it is not in their self interest, but idiot?

You need to understand the difference between libertarianism and Objectivism. According to libertarian doctrine, if you want to become a heroin addict or join a Buddhist monastery, that is your right and all discussion ends there. According to Objectivism what is moral is that which furthers your life and happiness as a human qua human; thus joining a Buddhist monastery is evil. Market discrimination on the basis of gender or race or even religion is contrary to your self-interest, and is therefore immoral.

According to the conservative-libertarian theory you have right to be an idiot. According to Objectivism, you do not. The political right to stupidity remains, of course, but a deeper issue is called to the question.

If a cake-maker wishes to decline a sale to a "gay" couple, that might be their political right. But their decision is evidence of a pre-conceptual, pre-industrial mentality and should be identified as such.

Hmmm this business is being bullied and the bullying is being backed by the Supreme Court.... who's the minority in this again? I'm getting confused.
This smells of Mob rule!