The 16th Amendment was about taxes, and did not address either collectivism or individualism. And the inability of corporations to fine or jail the public is beside the point, which was whether collectivism ever has any legitimate place in society. I think it does. There are pros and cons to both individualism and collectivism, and a stable society will need to utilize both in order to attain and maintain prosperity. Choosing either one to the absolute exclusion of the other leads to disaster.

Asking whether one should choose collectivism or individualism to achieve prosperity is like asking whether an airplane needs a left wing or a right wing in order to fly straight. Clearly both are needed.

Because a business is interacting with the general public, and therefore is in a greater position to potentially cause harm.

A government health inspector can inspect the kitchen of a restaurant, but not the kitchen of a home.

No, I oppose polygamy because it's harmful to women. We also can't legalize incestual marriages because close relatives produce offspring with birth defects due to not having a wide enough gene pool. In both of these cases, there is empirical evidence demonstrating harm, whether its legalized or not. In same-sex marriages, however, there is no harm to anyone, and therefore no logical reason to ban it.

So I am being logically consistent, I'm just using a different train of logic than you. ;)

Alright, what did they say? :)

Well, you seem to be doing extremely well for the most part, but there is that one last little step. You might want to try talking to your gay friend and her partner about the whole civil union vs. marriage debate. See what they think.

Oh, so standing up for their rights and fighting back against persecution is heterophobic now? Please, don't be ridiculous. The regulations regarding property rights must naturally be stricter for commercial property than for residential property.

The baker was totally homophobic, but was trying to say that homophobia is not actually homophobia. His self-contradictory statements made it clear that he was just in denial. It doesn't matter if he claims to not have a problem with the lifestyle. If he opposes same-sex marriage, then he clearly DOES have a problem with it.

Denying that their discrimination is actually discrimination is a favorite tactic of bigots.

You ever notice how the phrase "I'm not racist, but..." is always followed by something incredibly racist? Yeah, this is sorta like that.

"One can be an Individualist or a Collectivist but trying to be both is an impossibility."
---
That's not true at all. It's entirely possible to recognize that individualism and collectivism both have legitimate places in society. The problem with Communism was that they tried to say only collectivism was valid, and that individualism should be eliminated. Now we can certainly say that is evil, but simply taking the exact opposite stance and saying that only individualism is valid, and that collectivism should be eliminated would likely have similar results.The claim that collectivism is inherently evil has lead many Objectivists to conclude that teamwork is evil, because teamwork is a form of collectivism. Pretty much every large corporation operates on collectivist principles. Would you eliminate every big business for the sake of preserving only the individually operated small businesses?

If your definition of "totalitarian state" is any state which passes laws and regulations, then I'm afraid there has never been a non-totalitarian state in the history of mankind. Clearly a different definition is needed, otherwise we'll never be able to correctly recognize TRUE totalitarianism.