A Muslim baker yes. A Muslim bakery, no. The baker is an employee, subject to obeying the order of their employer. A Muslim Bakery would by definition have staked out their orientation and therefore properly be able to refuse such a request.

If you believe business owners don't get to pick their customers then you believe I can go into a Muslim baker and force him to bake a cake with an image of Mohammed bowing to Jesus with the quote "I am sorry for being a murderous, lying pedophile."

Seems legit.

".. Democracy .. " Question or insult, to take it at face value as a question-

Whatever democracy is, it is not completely observed, for good reasons.
Legislatures can vote, but their desires are capped by constitutions (eg US)
or upper houses (UK).

It is curious that a poster on this site would give a naive definition of
democracy ignoring property rights and individual freedom.
First, put in place the fundamentals such as property rights, then democracy.
Otherwise you have a system where two foxes and a chicken vote on the dinner menu.

If you don’t believe in Democracy, what system do you propose, oh master of logic?

Horseshit. This is so absurdly simple. Always look for the gun. I can refuse sevice to anyone that I wish. There is no gun. The prospect simply says "that guy is an asshole" (by the way, I am an asshole and I like it and I can afford to be an asshole ... mark of pride) guy and moves down the street to inquire of the next potential seller. The "law" as you say now introduces the gun. Insists that I have to sell my product (blueberries, cherries, agricultural rental land, residential rentals, financial consulting, software distribution service ...) To any arbitrary prospect. Can you see the gun? Can you conceptualize? Can you or do you have the ability to think? I have a masters in computer science. I have taught engineers from Boeing to Hong Kong. My language is Logic. Do not presume to know what Rand would condone. Did you read The fountainhead? Do you know why Roark demolished Cortland? Democracy can go F*ck itself.

Yeah, and I produced the movie. Your logic is flawed. There is no violation of an individual's right. They voluntarily decided to open a business. By Law (which is not the tyranny of the Majority. It is a necessary component of a civilized society. We call them Laws), they may not always be good laws, and they may in fact be evil, but that is the opportunity, indeed the triumph of Democracy. I am by no means advocating violating an individual' right to association in context of their private business. You open a shop. You do not have the right to choose your customers. Of course, if they cannot pay, they cannot be customers. We trade for fair value. That's covered. Your goods are available for a price. But if someone is capable of paying that price, you do not have the right to refuse them the ability to purchase their goods. It seems the problem here is that you wish to make a distinction between when a product is made, you have the right to refuse to make it for an individual. What I mean here is that if you manufacture widgets, you really do not know in advance who is going to buy them. In this case, you do not have the right to discriminate on who may purchase them. On the other hand, if your business is to create custom, or "on demand" work, you think that therefore you get to say that you have the right to refuse to do the work because you don't like them. No. If you have laid out clear conditions on the circumstances under which you will perform your service, then you're pretty much in the clear. Your conditions may be ridiculous, but your on pretty firm ground philosophically. So if this baker had posted a sign that said "I don't make cakes for fags", at least he'd have a leg to stand on. But they didn't. They're basing their argument that somehow the customer was supposed to know that they were not welcome. The point is that this capricious decision has a very steep slope. No women. No Jews. No LGBTQ. No Whatever. That's why there's a law. It says you can't discriminate. It's prevents stuff like preventing blacks from eating at the lunch counter. They have a right to eat wherever they damn well please, just like any other human. Same with the cake. If I can buy it for my heterosexual wedding, they can buy it for their gay wedding. I'm sure Ayn Rand would agree. She stood very firmly against discrimination as a Jew.

Ah yes, the triumph of Democracy. The Greater Good for the Greater Many.
Otherwise known as the Tyranny of the Majority.
Two wolves and a sheep decide via Democratic Vote what shall be for dinner.

If an individual owns Business X (whether Emergency services or otherwise) AND Business X has a contract to Entity Y and fails to comply with the contract, then there will be justifiable legal action initiated against Business X on behalf of Entity Y for failure to provide product or service. However, if no such contract exists, there shall be no penalty should Business X not provide product or service to Entity Y.

What you are advancing here is a direct violation of an individual's right to association in context of their private business. Life is conditional -- I will conditionally provide my services to individuals based on numerous factors, including, but not limited to: credit worthiness. If an individual has no means, express or implied, to pay me, I will not do business with them.

Go ahead with that Democracy thing... the ending can be computed with mathematical certainty. The individual, who is compelled, by force, to provide services to others that they would prefer not to do business with, will eventually just close their doors... and then disappear... sounds like a book that I have read again for the sixth time.

An Individual's business is not an extension of their own body, any more than a corporation is a person. A corporation is a separate legal entity. It has a "life" of it's own. Your decision with whom to conduct business certainly may affect others, and may harm someone. If you're in the Emergency services business, and decide not to come to someone's aid for some personal reason, it certainly would affect them. It is not only through the use of force (threats, coercion, violence) that a business owner is compelled to provide service with whom they would not choose to have an association. It is through the rule of law, which is the legitimate use of force in a Democracy. As such, yes we can through majority rule pass legislation that says you cannot discriminate against someone by refusing to make their gay wedding cake because of your religious beliefs. It's a perfectly legitimate function of Democratic Government. There is no violation of rights in telling a business that what they provide for one, they must provide for all.

BLaramie is right, every Anglo legal jurisdiction recognizes non-written
contracts, even those that now do not speak English such as Zimbabwe, Israel,
Malaysia, ..

There is this problem in enforcing such a contract, you have to show evidence
that there was a non-written contract, and that it says what you say it says.

A court may decide that such a contract means you are open for business,
- that you will deal with blacks whites pinks reds, and with capitalist exploiters or commie spongers regardless (this requirement may now be a statute).
- that you will provide the product or service in the range that a reasonable Joe-customer could expect you to provide.

Should the court also insist that you provide a political advertisement with words
outside the usual experience of such a service?
Would a court order a Hindu owner of a bakery to provide a beef filled cake, even
if the owner did not say his bakery was Hindu?
Consider, an order for wording promoting all inclusive love by
pederasts/pedophiles, or a smoker told to do words for anti-smoking, or v.v.,
A little thought would come up with all kinds of examples on
these lines which are intolerable, and more to the point, could not be inferred by some claimed unwritten contract.
So my view is that a court would - well should, rule that the purported existence of unwritten general business contracts need strong evidence.

I have no idea what you mean by the "voluntary nature of business". I agree that a contract is a voluntary agreement, if that's what you mean. But that is a contract. The is no such thing as a "generic, open contract". When you open a business that provides goods and services, there is no "open contract". There is no "voluntary agreement" There is "here are my goods and services and here is the price." Pay the price, receive the goods or service. It comes down to a simple point. If you open a bakery, it's open to all. If you open a Jewish Deli, it's still open to all. If you open a bakery that specializes in Islamic baked goods, you cannot be forced to make matzo balls. But if you open a sign company, you don't get to agree with everything you are asked to put on a sign. Your making that sign does not imply your consent, agreement or complicity of the contents of that sign. You are simply doing what your business says it is in business to do. The same with cake. It has nothing to do with your belief system one way or the other. It's just a cake for a customer.

When I was first exposed to the Cake-Baking story, I visualized the following...

You have an insolent demanding toddler that is standing in the doorway of the business establishment (bakery), wailing out the following "You gonna bake me a f$% cake or I gonna get my daddy to beat the f*%@$# out of you!!!" Daddy, of course, is The State. And daddy has a gun.

You see, a toddler does not know (or care), what a business plan is.
A toddler does not know what a profit and loss statement is.
A toddler does not have a system of methods to hire and maintain good staff.
A toddler does not know how to draft and refine contracts with 3rd party vendors.
A toddler has no concept of inventory management, portion control or ingredient freshness rotation.
A toddler has no clue as to the concept of marketing, product pricing or how to build a customer base.

A toddler knows very little, other than how to make demands to satisfy its immediate feelings.

What I find strange, are the supposed adults that find alignment with the toddler.

This is absolute nonsense. I wanted to use a few different words, but the TOS for the Gulch make it clear that I dare not do so.

An individual's business is a piece of property -- it is an extension of their own body. An individual can choose who they will associate with and who they will avoid. This extends to all of their creative works, including their business. My decision with whom to conduct business (or not) harms no one. It is only through the application of the use of force (threats, coercion, violence) that a business owner would be compelled to provide service or enter into a contract with someone with whom they would choose to have no association.

I am in alignment with blarman's thoughts on this matter.

You are speaking of homosexual lifestyle. That is something that happens long after a person is a homosexual. My brother, e.g., knew he was having different, feelings and emotions that other kids did not have. He tried desperately to change those feelings but could not. He tried suicide twice but was not successful. He is now 72 and living with his companion still after 45 years. As for them being Christians, they have found that there are a number of churches where gays are welcome.
That "radical Muslim" should more accurately be "fundamentalist Muslim", one who believes and strictly practices Islam.
Seems like a Dr. is offended easily. As C. Hitchens noted, "...religion poisons everything".

Well, that's true enough. It would be a violation of
both the 9th and 13th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
But a great problem has been created by the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of any "states' rights objection to it. It was a good and righteous thing to sweep away the legalized injustices in the laws of the Southern States, and to disallow racial and religious discrimination by the state government, and in taxpayer-paid facilities,i.e.,
public schools, jury rooms, courthouses, etc.
But on his own private property, a man has the natural, individual right to decide who may and may not enter onto the property He has the right of freedom of association, which that Bill denies.

I like your definition better than BLaramie's

Instead of white "pine", "white woodie" would have been much more clear.

That would divert the flow of diarrhea from her mouth to her hind end. Much preferable !

But what an opportunity to spike the cake with laxatives!

Don't hold your breath, Cap'n. ;^)

I plan on going to a Muslim Bakery, and asking them to bake a cake with a picture of Mohammed Kneeling Before Jesus. With the words:
Please forgive me, I was vile to women, and a child molester.

AND I want the companies NAME on it.

So I can take pictures and share with the world.

And hopefully the ACLU will defend me in court.

yeah, what about MY feelings of not wanting my work to be snatched to pay for some syrian refugees whom I dont even know

Absolutely. Because feelings are ephemeral and can be whatever I want them to. Feelings aren't grounded in principles or absolutes. The thing that is the most hypocritical and contrary about the entire thing is that it isn't reciprocal - only one side's feelings matter.

Isnt that the heart of "political correctness" that the liberals require

Absolutely right. Its none of government's business.

That's not true at all and violates the voluntary nature of business. Business transactions are contractual, meaning that both parties must agree to the terms of the contract. Most businesses operate under a generic, open contract that says "here are my goods and my published prices and if you have the money, we'll trade." But those very same businesses reserve the right to refuse service on grounds such as inappropriate attire (no shirt, no shoes = no service).

We discriminate all the time. Some people like red more than they like blue. Some people like blondes and some like brunettes. "Discrimination" in law-making is nothing more than an ideological hammer, and when wielded by the government is a very dangerous thing indeed. Discrimination comes whenever there are choices: the only way to eliminate discrimination is to eliminate choice.

And I would point out that that very threat of government coercion was what caused Jefferson and Adams to sign the Declaration of Independence. I think you completely misinterpret how either of those two gentlemen would have acted in this case.