NathanJ,

You need to read up a bit on jurisprudence. There is the philosophy that a man’s home is his castle (This used to be absolute, meaning that one could kill someone on their own property - for whatever reason - and the law couldn’t touch them. For obvious reasons, this is not the case now.).

This principle does not extend to businesses, no matter how private they are, because when one starts a private business, they are still putting it out there into the PUBLIC domain. I can refuse, say, Jews into my home if I please because it is my private domain, this is not the case with a business.

<<You don't understand that a business operation is just that - private. It's not your business.>>

You are getting all caught up in terminology (i.e. ‘private’) without any consideration for legal philosophy. We are entering an age-old philosophical/political debate that has raged for centuries with multiple perspectives which all have their strengths and weaknesses. It’s hardly going to be resolved now by pointing to a word and appealing to absolutes.

<<Private, business operators should not … be expected to be put in a position where they have to "check the prejudices of their customers, local, state or federal governments".>>

I haven’t suggested that they should. It can be argued, however, that there should be restrictions placed upon them for the reason I cited. Although, this isn’t a debate I’m inclined to get too far into, as it is somewhat dependant on one’s worldview, and the law agrees with me anyway. Your objections have been noted, however.

<<Firstly, you assume people need retailers.>>

No, I don’t. But some may want them, and this is all that is necessary for my point to be valid, and for your comparison to be invalid.

<<Personally, I think that "prejudice" is the wrong term to use, because business decisions are simply, made in private.>>

No, they are made in public because their decision concerns and entity which has been placed into the public domain and affects the public. Either way, it’s still prejudice.

AJ,

"The difference (and I'm sure the law would agree with me here) is that the message in your example is hateful, whereas there is nothing hateful about a gay wedding cake"

The message isn't hateful, it simply says,

"Christ is the Son of God".

Why would Neo-Nazis be going to a Muslim baker anyway? They'd be too worried about him using halal ingredients, and the profits from his business supporting terrorism. This is a stupid hypothetical.

Here's one for you:

Should a baker be allowed to refuse bake a gluten-free cake for trendy types who aren't actually gluten intolerant? Refusing to bake a gluten-free cake for somebody who was actually gluten intolerant would be clear-cut case of discrimination against disability. But is it wrong to tell the customers 'look, you can have a proper cake or you can piss off' if they're only following a stupid fad?

Toni,

"Why would Neo-Nazis be going to a Muslim baker anyway? They'd be too worried about him using halal ingredients, and the profits from his business supporting terrorism. This is a stupid hypothetical."

OK, they're not anything but a Catholic couple who believe in multiculturism and the Pope's call for brotherhood with Muslims.

AJ Phillips,

Law is questionable, because you stated:

"You see, this hypothetical bakery did not spring up off the blood, sweat, and tears of its owner alone. The baker was able to establish his bakery because he lived in a society that made this possible. He did not do it all by himself (c.f. the myth of the ‘self-made man’). Therefore, it can be argued that the baker does not get to be a monumental arsehole to the people who make up the society that helped make his bakery possible."

Legally any argument based on the above will not be advanced.

This issue is not about emotional arguments re living in a society or about how a private business operator has benefited from that.

The general public should not be drawn into any issue (between a private business operator and a member of the public). This is something for business owners and customers to resolve in private.

For example, one time I wanted to get furniture restored. The business owner said he may not be able to complete the work, because he wanted time off work.

Now I can argue, whether I respect the private business owners wishes (regarding living in a society), or I can disrespect his wishes and demand services because it has been put "out there into the PUBLIC domain".

Regarding prejudice:

<<No, they are made in public because their decision concerns and entity which has been placed into the public domain and affects the public. Either way, it’s still prejudice.>>

Decisions about prejudice are not necessarily made in that context. For the reason above, people may not know all of the facts, reasons or context to why a business has decided to not provide a service, so claiming prejudice, is wrong, with various reasons existing.

Finally,

<<You are getting all caught up in terminology>>

Yes and I will. Law isn't always (ethically) right. I will make a personal decision to respect the rights of private business operators. They are people, not objects.

Life isn't a one way street that selectively favours residential households.

Dear Toni,

«Refusing to bake a gluten-free cake for somebody who was actually gluten intolerant would be clear-cut case of discrimination against disability»

No, because that would simply be a case of demanding a product that is not on sale, to anyone. This would be akin to demanding an elephant from a used-car-yard because one is allergic to cars. You want an elephant? see if you can find one in your local pet shop!

And even according to the existing non-discrimination regime, nobody is obliged to provide you with "Spock" dolls unless they provide them to others.

Now please stay on the topic.