If not by the market, responsive to humans, who; the government? So how's that working for you?

I think that's evident from the picture in the article. The protestors are holding a sign that says "Let the gays eat cake", which completely misses the point. Instead, it reframes the whole issue as innocent children being deprived of a yummy treat. If that's really the way want us to see the issue, then what follows is that they look like silly babies with daddy issues. I'm glad that the government didn't come to my house, point a gun to my dad's head, and say "serve this kid what he wants or we'll escort you to jail" every time I was refused a Twinkie.

This is tragic because this was a great opportunity to call for a reasonable boycott with real support from heterosexuals - and they squandered it.

Call it what it is, Maph. Force. (Anti personal decision legislation. Anti freedom. Hell, it's against the 1st Amendment even....unless that now has a disclaimer that you can only speak freely if no one's feelings are getting hurt.)

you know, I think many people thrive on pushing conflict. I wonder if that is the case here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphe...
straight up socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphe...

"public sphere" has socialist origins. IT is not a Constitutionally supported concept. We may have passed bad laws that support the concept but they are bad and lead to bad consequences and make slaves of one group (entrepreneurs) while protecting another (gays). Both groups are american citizens and no harm was done to remedy. They can go down the street and get a cake. Walmart has great icing-whey wouldn't have batted an eye at that order. See? no harm. IT's that the couple wanted a cake from that specific business and they did not care that the business should have to perform. This is not how contract law works. Both parties must be willing when entering into a contract. IF one party is unwilling and the govt says I do not care and supports the other party, that's with prejudice. and it's straight up contractual slavery.
Payment is only one part of a contract.

Well said. Who wants to eat a cake made at gunpoint anyway? Is that how you'd want to remember your special day?

Hmm, who you marry could undermine the fabric of a culture or society. If two low IQ individuals breed more low IQ individuals that could be against the public interest and make us less competitive on the public stage. Better pass a law prohibiting dummies from breeding.

You have no right to force someone to part with the product of their labor just because you want it or for any reason what so ever. the man consumes his life in the production of his trade, who are you or the government to tell him for who he must let be the recipient, or for what level of compensation?

A free market can decide for itself. If gays and gay sympathizers choose to boycott the business, kudos to them.

Much like the saying "a good merchant does not argue religion with his clients", a good merchant does not argue sexuality with his client. If a baker chooses not to sell penis shaped cakes in spite of a market for them, it's his loss.

Getting the government involved is ridiculous. That the government would get involved is simply wrong.

who are you to determine the correct basis and impose it upon me?

Are hurt feelings harm? How about lower self esteem? who is the arbiter of what "harm" is?

You are not free to not be offended. there is no demonstrable right to be free from being offended, nor is there any right to be universally liked. People must be allowed to determine their own values and act accordingly. If you deny that, then there is no freedom and there is no individuality. Where does it stop? Who decides? Society? A simple majority? A super majority? How many men does it take to vote the panties off of an unwilling woman?

a person who is forced to do work for another, regardless of compensation, a man who has no choice, no ability to choose his values is a man that is oppressed, a man who is a slave to the moral dictates of "society".

Maphesdus, you need to step out of your emotional based thinking and understand the nature of rights. While the gay couple may have had their feelings hurt, no force was used against them. Now the shop owner is being forced, at the threat of a fine, which is equivalent to a portion of his life if he doesn't serve the gay couple. You don't have the "right" to do business with anyone that doesn't of his own free will choose to serve you. If you claim that a person choosing to refrain from service, even for prejudiced or biased reasons must serve another, even if it can be morally shown that the bias is immoral, you are still using the ends to justify the means.

If the means are not moral, the ends cannot be justified. Denial of rights, for the sake of someone's definition of Utopia is not justifiable and the Gay's rights are not being violated any more than a black man's would have been, or any other "protected" group. Yes, people should be allowed to make their own decisions. In private enterprise they should be able to express their prejudice or bias and they should not be protected from the ills that their irrational behavior will inevitably bring upon them.

How you can suggest that the shop owner is the instigator, the bully is beyond me. I honestly don't understand how you came to be on this site. You are obviously no Objectivist.

Holy cats!!! That was a mouthful of contradictions. Maph, you're obviously seriously conflicted. You want a life free of judgement. Good luck with that.