Um... No it isn't. You can't control others, so get used to it.
Maph...what label should be put on legally forcing someone to do business with another even though it's against their personal judgement? Hmm, what should we call that...?

So when I'm home alone I belong to my self, and my property belongs to me and I can do with it as I wish. When I open a business my property is mine as long as I sell it to everyone with disregard to immutable characteristics.

Is this right or am I still way off. Just give me a premise to work with.

To discriminate is to survive. Its been that way since our ancestors lived in caves. At ant rate, I'll be there on Friday to support Jack Phillips.

you always ignore the Force factor in areas you support. One must be consistent throughout with the law. You want preferential treatment for certain groups. Because of that, you open the door for other groups to get preferential treatment under the law-groups you would agree should not get such treatment. How about courts granting exemptions for Sharia law? hmm? There must be a basis. Will people make bad decisions? YES. However, it will not be through FORCE. You ignore this argument throughout. You want to force ME and hide behind the "govt"

this is a socialist concept not what this country was founded on. I reject it as against natural law.

By refusing to do business with someone is NOT bullying them. If I am FORCED to interact with someone I do not wish to interact with, or to engage in an exchange of some kind, then I am being bullied. How is refusing to do business with someone bullying THEM! By this lack of reasoning you've got going here then you'd say that John Galt was bullying the world for NOT sharing his motor (ideas) with it. Wanting to keep YOUR ideas, or YOUR inventions, or YOUR personally owned property OR BUSINESS from someone, or EVERY one is in NO way bullying them. And your cartoon is ridiculous. The lgbtxlmnop people are not being crucified by religion. Religious people just don't want you (them) telling them (the religious people) that they can no longer operate under their own belief system, or their principles, because you want to cry discrimination. Again, Maph, we are not going to agree on this. But I leave you with this...I say it to my kindergartners all the time... what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine and none of it is up for grabs. If it's not yours don't touch it.

private property
private enterprise
private transactions

something unchangeable...like transgender?! sorry, you opened the door.
Public only applies to governmental actions, not private citizens.

this is one of those cases where liberals have hijacked the original meaning of the word. Which is definition 1. discernment. Does definition 2 happen? Yes. But the law should not weigh in on these decisions. There is no force involved, and if I own myself, I have a right to free association. If you say otherwise, I can decide who you marry, who you go to school with, who you have to buy things from (obamacare) etc.

he doesn't understand YOUR definition.

there is no harm in my not selling you a cake. Why would you want to buy a cake from me if I am not willing to sell a cake to you? Kill is FORCE. I do not want to keep going back and forth with you on some definitions. Have you read Capitalism the Unknown Ideal? I thought you had.
"Rational limitations." that is not protection of natural rights. that is what our country was founded on-and yes the founders were aware that the Constitution was in direct conflict with slavery. you can be religious whatever-you may not take away my natural rights. I have a natural right to free association personally and in business.

Oh man this actually makes sense now! So the Baker can refuse to provide a service to a racist, based on the premise that the racist uses discrimination, so it's ok to discriminate against him. At that point, anyone can discriminate against the Baker now, because he falls under the same premise, he uses discrimination! A = A and all is well.

No wait that doesn't make sense because the only things people can't discriminate against is sex, race, and religion right? And the disabled. Forgot that one. And they can't discriminate against the fore mentioned because it's irrational. So we can't discriminate against something unless it's irrational.

So it's rational to refuse service to a nazi because he is irrational. However the nazi can not refuse service to the jew because it's irrational.

Hey Maph are you allowed to discriminate when you're selling your body? Like a prostitute? Logically I think it would be wrong. If we can't discriminate with what we do with the products of our body, we shouldn't be allowed to discriminate with our bodies themselves. I mean, property is property. My body is my body, my bakery is my bakery.

Ok so if we can't discriminate with our property this should include what we do with our everyday actions and speech. If someone of another ethnicity wants to talk to me, it would be discrimination for me to not reciprocate the conversation.

Yeah, they should just outlaw racism, sexism, and anti religious people. Anyone showing a tendencies towards these types of behavior should definitely be reprimanded in some way.

That is seriously what you sound like to me man.

you cannot hijack the meaning of a word. Selecting can be blind. Everyone has criteria in which to make choices. It is not evil to apply prejudice in whom you choose to associate with. I am not evil and you know it. Can I pick who you marry?

So you can only discriminate against discriminatory things?