Every time the government uses force or authority or coercion, it's bullying -- regardless of the reason.

Free people do not have to justify not performing a service. She chose not to. Her reasons are none of anyone's business.

That's the reason for the law. Some woman in New Mexico was fined for refusing to be a wedding photographer for a lesbian wedding.

http://www.deseretnews.com/art...

The law is to keep innocent people from being bullied by (or with in the case of lawsuits) the government for choosing who they do business with.

3-4 sentences is a "complex" law, I guess.

My preference is for zero laws telling people who to do business with. If that doesn't work out great for some people, then maybe they should consider making some different life choices. But there's nothing wrong with a fair compromise.

For the sake of peace, let me suggest a compromise:

For businesses that serve a critical need, like the only ambulance or pharmacy or gas station or hotel within 100 miles, they must accept everyone. They lose a little freedom to choose, but they are a monopoly and can charge monopoly prices to make up for it.

For every other business, the business owner gets to pick and choose her customers freely -- unless all businesses offering similar, critically needed services excluded the same people. Then the customer could demand to be served because of "unfair discrimination". If the business owner refuses, she faces lawsuits and/or other government reprisal. If the customer falsely claims "unfair discrimination", he faces similar lawsuits and/or other government reprisal.

How's that for a fair compromise that solves all the hypothetical problems?

It should be good enough ... unless government bullying of innocent people is the actual objective and this pharmacy argument is just a way to sell it to people who, on balance, would rather the government not harass wedding cake bakers.

gays are perfectly free to marry people of the opposite sex

See how free everyone is?

Lets try peaceful coexistence instead of government bullying this time. Then maybe it'll be easier next time and even easier the time after that. We can get the slippery slope sloping in the direction of peaceful coexistence rather than toward government bulling for every occasion.

Which seems like an argument for no pharmacy ever being allowed to close, even for 1 second. Why do you prefer (hypothetical) situations where everyone is hurt the maximum amount?

If wedding cake bakers shouldn't get to choose, wedding cake buyers shouldn't get to choose either. And everyone should have to buy a wedding cake, regardless of whether they're getting married. Also, everyone should be forced to bake wedding cakes, whether they're in the cake-baking business or not. Because then we'll all be EQUAL. (See! It's persuasive and logical because of the capital letters!)

What's your point? Forcing people to do things against their will is perfectly fine for any situation? All situations are exactly like stuff that happened to black folks in 1950?

Jeremi from now: NSA spying is ok because ... black people ... lunch counter ... 1950s. Government bullying solved that problem, therefore government should always bully everyone for everything, regardless of how trivial and needless it is.

That was 50 years ago and 1000 miles away. Why are you living in the past? The wedding cake bakers didn't own any old south restaurants from 60 years ago. They are not guilty of whatever happened back then.

It's simply not necessary to have the government threaten and bully people into baking wedding cakes and shooting silly wedding pictures. So why are you so hellbent on doing it?

Cakepocalypse? Send in FEMA, and tell them to bring flour and eggs!

"Taken to the extreme", lots of things don't make sense. So lets not do that. Then we can all co-exist peacefully, baking cakes or not, as we choose. Why are you against peaceful co-existence?

What if the pharmacy goes out of business because there's not enough demand? Should any pharmacy ever be allowed to go out of business? What about the lifesaving medication!!!?

Why do we need false hypotheticals?

In the real, true situation, you're trying to have the government threaten and bully cake decorators and wedding photographers.

Free people should be free to choose. Even if you think they might make the wrong choices, regardless of whatever happened to whomever at whatever lunch counter. You can say "public accommodation" 100 times. You're still using government threats and bullying to force innocent people -- people who have harmed no one -- to act against their will.

Again, no one "asked". The space was rented or purchased, like a home that is rented or purchased. Licensing is a shakedown.