Bake Me a Cake—or Else

[cryptodevil]

Seriously though, it's unfortunate (and  embarrassing) that people vilify others for conscientiously objecting to something they don't agree with

Conscientiously objecting to something is one thing, projecting that objection on to other people by discriminating against them is something else entirely. You are free to believe whatever religious-based morality you have been conditioned to replace secular reality with, you are not free, however, to force it on to other people through your discrimination.

The seats may be just as comfy at the back of the bus, but if somebody is told they may not sit on the seats at the front, because people consider that person to be 'not as equal' a human being as those 'kind' who get to sit on the seats at the front of the bus, does telling that person they can choose any seat they wish at the back mean you can dismiss their protestations at being discriminated against as leftist/liberal 'intolerance'?

when IT IS THEIR CHOICE to refuse business to anyone they want.

ORLY? A business is a legal trading entity and, as such, does not have the right to pick and choose who it serves based on the personal discrimination issues of its staff.

You want to sell cakes to white people only? You can't form a company and refuse to serve black people.

You want to give cakes to white people only? Knock yourself out, you racist asshole, you are perfectly entitled to personally hand out cakes just to white people and tell any black person who asks for one that you refuse to because it goes against your fundamentalist xtian 'morality'. That is your right.

Do it for money, though, and your racist self doesn't get to dictate company law because the business, as a legal entity, is performing the trade.

I'd express surprise at the sheer number of people who don't seem to understand that basic fact, but seeing as they are the type who like to call homophobic discrimination 'conscientious objection', and cite those who protest against discrimination as being 'intolerant'. It's almost like they are so wilfully ignorant they don't even understand the irony (as well as absurd stupidity) of using that word to describe people who are against other people's intolerance of those 'who are not like them'.

[bryant.coleman]

Majority?, what are you talking about?, only about 50% of the Americans "support" same sex marriage, not to mention that not all of them are going to boicot something good (assuming the baker in mention is a talented one) to show their "support". There are plenty of brands aiming to more specific populations and still doing quite well (starting from women-only stores).

When the gay marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court of the United States, some 42% of the population was in favor of that measure, and some 40% were against it (according to the Associated Press-GfK opinion poll). So that means that less than half of the population is supporting the legalization of the homosexual marriage.

[pungopete468]

Seriously though, it's unfortunate (and  embarrassing) that people vilify others for conscientiously objecting to something they don't agree with

Conscientiously objecting to something is one thing, projecting that objection on to other people by discriminating against them is something else entirely. You are free to believe whatever religious-based morality you have been conditioned to replace secular reality with, you are not free, however, to force it on to other people through your discrimination.

The seats may be just as comfy at the back of the bus, but if somebody is told they may not sit on the seats at the front, because people consider that person to be 'not as equal' a human being as those 'kind' who get to sit on the seats at the front of the bus, does telling that person they can choose any seat they wish at the back mean you can dismiss their protestations at being discriminated against as leftist/liberal 'intolerance'?

You're leaving out a critical part of the scenario, which is necessary to compare the events in your assessment here. The baker is being compelled to ACT (move), not restricting the ACTION (choose any available seat) of another...

If a person refuses to move from a bus seat because another person wants that seat, is it discrimination when the passenger already in the seat refuses to yield to the new passenger? A bus seat is a commodity, non-living, and indiscriminate, like a "product" or a "good". Labor on the other hand, is an expression, reflecting the choice of the laborer to produce something of value...

when IT IS THEIR CHOICE to refuse business to anyone they want.

ORLY? A business is a legal trading entity and, as such, does not have the right to pick and choose who it serves based on the personal discrimination issues of its staff.

You want to sell cakes to white people only? You can't form a company and refuse to serve black people.

You want to give cakes to white people only? Knock yourself out, you racist asshole, you are perfectly entitled to personally hand out cakes just to white people and tell any black person who asks for one that you refuse to because it goes against your fundamentalist xtian 'morality'. That is your right.

Do it for money, though, and your racist self doesn't get to dictate company law because the business, as a legal entity, is performing the trade.

I'd express surprise at the sheer number of people who don't seem to understand that basic fact, but seeing as they are the type who like to call homophobic discrimination 'conscientious objection', and cite those who protest against discrimination as being 'intolerant'. It's almost like they are so wilfully ignorant they don't even understand the irony (as well as absurd stupidity) of using that word to describe people who are against other people's intolerance of those 'who are not like them'.

Had the baker refused to sell them a cake that had previously been prepared with no other purpose than to sell at the counter, that would be a different thing entirely. The cake becomes no more than a product after it's been prepared, but up until that point, nobody has a right to demand that a person bake them a cake, even if that person routinely bakes cakes for others... Labor is not a "good" and a laborer has a right not to accept employment from a potential employer if they so desire for any reason, or none at all. Any time a person is working on behalf of another, they are employed by that person, this system doesn't restrict the human rights of either the employer, or employee...

The baker is a contractor, accepting contracts for future labor which utilize a specific set of skills owned only by the baker... Nobody has a right to demand your labor against your will. PERIOD.

P.S.
No part of starting a business (legal trading entity) entails that the owner relinquish control over their labor. The (legal trading entity-business) is merely the proprietors choice to share revenue with the community, and advertise their personal abilities to a grander audience...

[TheButterZone]

So first you fuck the LGBT
Then you fuck the people who aren't LGBT but support them

Is anyone really selling cakes at such a premium that you they afford to say "fuck the majority of customers who aren't bigots like me"?

Majority?, what are you talking about?, only about 50% of the Americans "support" same sex marriage, not to mention that not all of them are going to boicot something good (assuming the baker in mention is a talented one) to show their "support". There are plenty of brands aiming to more specific populations and still doing quite well (starting from women-only stores).

You can support or deny LGBT without marriage coming into play. Do you think bigots would sell cakes to those they knew were LGBT but did not know they were getting married?

What are these "women-only stores" that prohibit men from purchasing there? Either for women, or for themselves. Does a security guard make you reveal your pubic area before you hit the checkout line, or even the store entry?

Also, cannot you answer to what I asked?, why is this different to denying someone access to a bar based on how he dresses?, would people make such a drama if a straight guy or girl was denied access to a gay bar?, grow up, people is free to think whatever they want, wether you like it or not.

I can't answer apples and elephants comparisons, no.

What are these gay bars that deny access to heteros? Does a security guard make you suck a penis or lick a vagina before you enter?

People can think whatever they want, such as "LGBT money has cooties!", but that's a moronic/economically suicidal way to do business.

ETA: Hell, I'd boycott them if they refused to shut up and take any mentally-sound innocent's money.

[European Central Bank]

I would be pissed off if I was denied my lesbian cake. I can't see the point in taking it any further. Lots of other cakes in the world.

[cryptodevil]

If a person refuses to move from a bus seat because another person wants that seat, is it discrimination when the passenger already in the seat refuses to yield to the new passenger? A bus seat is a commodity, non-living, and indiscriminate, like a "product" or a "good". Labor on the other hand, is an expression, reflecting the choice of the laborer to produce something of value...

The fuck? That is the shonkiest, most twisted and warped bit of reasoning I have read in a long time. Seriously, it takes some effort to be so committed to dreaming up a 'justification' for hateful discrimination that you actually start to break it down into physical movement in order to desperately attempt to reach your point.

The bus analogy reflects an 'expression', which was the choice of the racist white people back in the day to socially declare black people as lesser human beings than they. It's got nothing to do with whether somebody is already in the seat and everything to do with expressed rule which clearly showed that white people considered black people to be inferior human beings, to the degree they dictated to black people where they were permitted to sit on the bus, which water fountains they were permitted to use, and so on.

Would you, like most fundie xtian 'conscientious objectors', consider a black person's protest at being told they could not access the same facilities as white people, to be 'intolerant' of the white people's racist rules? Would you claim the black person was trampling on the deeply-held personal beliefs of the white people?

Had the baker refused to sell them a cake that had previously been prepared with no other purpose than to sell at the counter, that would be a different thing entirely. . . .No part of starting a business (legal trading entity) entails that the owner relinquish control over their labor. The (legal trading entity-business) is merely the proprietors choice to share revenue with the community, and advertise their personal abilities to a grander audience...

Wrong again, and still a spectacularly warped bit of reasoning.

If a black person walks into a white-person-owned coffee-shop and places an order, it is legal for the proprietor to assert that they are no longer serving customers and turn the customer away. Nobody is forcing the business-owner to have to labour. If, however, the proprietor only declines to provide service when the customer is black, then it is apparent he is not, in fact, denying service to all customers but is picking and choosing who to serve, based on his own personal discriminatory rules. That is not his choice to make. The rules of public trade are that if you are providing goods and services your business must service all customers, not that it must labour, but that if it is labouring to provide goods and service then it cannot refuse to service a customer on the basis of 'conscientiously objecting' to the fact that customer does not conform to the proprietor's definition of an 'acceptable' person.

Equality is not 'special treatment'.

[Spendulus]

....

ETA: Hell, I'd boycott them if they refused to shut up and take any mentally-sound innocent's money.

I'm all for boycotting control freaks, arrogant single issue loudmouths, pink fascists, and many other annoying examples of subhumanity.

[bryant.coleman]

I'm all for boycotting control freaks, arrogant single issue loudmouths, pink fascists, and many other annoying examples of subhumanity.

And at the same time you are unconsciously supporting them, either directly or indirectly. Do you use Facebook? If so, you are indirectly supporting gay marriage and the pink mafia (FB recently deleted a large number of posts opposing gay marriage). Also, if you use twitter, you are indirectly supporting the illegal immigration... the list is quite long.

[TheButterZone]

98789, it appears that you had the chance to, but didn't read or care about my last two paragraphs, so I don't see the point in responding to any more of your nonsense. /ignore

[Spendulus]

I'm all for boycotting control freaks, arrogant single issue loudmouths, pink fascists, and many other annoying examples of subhumanity.

And at the same time you are unconsciously supporting them, either directly or indirectly. Do you use Facebook? If so, you are indirectly supporting gay marriage and the pink mafia (FB recently deleted a large number of posts opposing gay marriage). Also, if you use twitter, you are indirectly supporting the illegal immigration... the list is quite long.

No and no.

[galdur]

Equality is good in principle obviously but where do you stop? Not everyone is born equal, some people are only fit to shovel shit if that. Maybe nowadays some of them end up as managers from corporations to governments. Perfect equality means lowering the bar I guess. Even worse; certifiable psychopaths may get ahead, with extremely serious consequences.  The state has a monopoly on violence, remember? Equality for idiots and nutcases; give it a thought.

[pungopete468]

If a person refuses to move from a bus seat because another person wants that seat, is it discrimination when the passenger already in the seat refuses to yield to the new passenger? A bus seat is a commodity, non-living, and indiscriminate, like a "product" or a "good". Labor on the other hand, is an expression, reflecting the choice of the laborer to produce something of value...

The fuck? That is the shonkiest, most twisted and warped bit of reasoning I have read in a long time. Seriously, it takes some effort to be so committed to dreaming up a 'justification' for hateful discrimination that you actually start to break it down into physical movement in order to desperately attempt to reach your point.

So you disagree then... I find it hillarious how illogical people can be when it suits their own causes... Like a selfish child crying out with pure emotion when they can't have a unicorn.

My analogy was plain and simple, If I'm sitting on a bus and you want my seat, you would feel justified in demanding that I move, regardless of race... Race is a but single example buried beneath a mountain of others, as outlined in this thread.

The bus analogy reflects an 'expression', which was the choice of the racist white people back in the day to socially declare black people as lesser human beings than they. It's got nothing to do with whether somebody is already in the seat and everything to do with expressed rule which clearly showed that white people considered black people to be inferior human beings, to the degree they dictated to black people where they were permitted to sit on the bus, which water fountains they were permitted to use, and so on.

Would you, like most fundie xtian 'conscientious objectors', consider a black person's protest at being told they could not access the same facilities as white people, to be 'intolerant' of the white people's racist rules? Would you claim the black person was trampling on the deeply-held personal beliefs of the white people?

Please, I'll give you 0.1 btc if you can quote the part of my bus analogy which discriminates against any specific group. In my analogy, any person is free to sit in any open seat, no mention of water fountains. You've invented things that were never said because you want to hate what I said... That's discrimination, and it's irrationally mis-placed because you actually just attacked your own beliefs for no reason, you just wanted to disagree with whatever I said... Good job.

No, I would not consider a black persons protest to be intolerant in that scenario. An establishment is not a person, and can't enforce or demand a discriminatory policy. Period... 

Had the baker refused to sell them a cake that had previously been prepared with no other purpose than to sell at the counter, that would be a different thing entirely. . . .No part of starting a business (legal trading entity) entails that the owner relinquish control over their labor. The (legal trading entity-business) is merely the proprietors choice to share revenue with the community, and advertise their personal abilities to a grander audience...

Wrong again, and still a spectacularly warped bit of reasoning.

If a black person walks into a white-person-owned coffee-shop and places an order, it is legal for the proprietor to assert that they are no longer serving customers and turn the customer away. Nobody is forcing the business-owner to have to labour. If, however, the proprietor only declines to provide service when the customer is black, then it is apparent he is not, in fact, denying service to all customers but is picking and choosing who to serve, based on his own personal discriminatory rules. That is not his choice to make. The rules of public trade are that if you are providing goods and services your business must service all customers, not that it must labour, but that if it is labouring to provide goods and service then it cannot refuse to service a customer on the basis of 'conscientiously objecting' to the fact that customer does not conform to the proprietor's definition of an 'acceptable' person.

Equality is not 'special treatment'.

I still don't think you get it... What "rules of public trade" are you referencing? What are you talking about? You're making stuff up. The coffee shop owner can certainly choose not to serve ANY customer they wish as long as they aren't the only coffee shop in town... If they were the only coffee shop, sure... That would be restricting the customers ability to buy coffee, and that would be a violation of the customers right to trade...


15 U.S. Code § 13 - Discrimination in price, services, or facilities

- , That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade:

[cryptodevil]

If a person refuses to move from a bus seat because another person wants that seat, is it discrimination when the passenger already in the seat refuses to yield to the new passenger? A bus seat is a commodity, non-living, and indiscriminate, like a "product" or a "good". Labor on the other hand, is an expression, reflecting the choice of the laborer to produce something of value...

The fuck? That is the shonkiest, most twisted and warped bit of reasoning I have read in a long time. Seriously, it takes some effort to be so committed to dreaming up a 'justification' for hateful discrimination that you actually start to break it down into physical movement in order to desperately attempt to reach your point.

So you disagree then... I find it hillarious how illogical people can be when it suits their own causes... Like a selfish child crying out with pure emotion when they can't have a unicorn.

Oooh, great rebuttal of my criticism concerning your desperate attempt to disassemble your support of discrimination by breaking it down into component parts of physical movement. Projection much?

My analogy was plain and simple, If I'm sitting on a bus and you want my seat, you would feel justified in demanding that I move, regardless of race... Race is a but single example buried beneath a mountain of others, as outlined in this thread.

No, your analogy is false. Not only would I not feel justified in demanding that you move from your bus seat, even if I wanted to sit in that seat because of reasons, I would have no basis by which to demand you to vacate that seat. What point are you even trying to make here, that people are entitled to order other people out of a bus seat?

Please, I'll give you 0.1 btc if you can quote the part of my bus analogy which discriminates against any specific group. In my analogy, any person is free to sit in any open seat, no mention of water fountains. You've invented things that were never said because you want to hate what I said... That's discrimination, and it's irrationally mis-placed because you actually just attacked your own beliefs for no reason, you just wanted to disagree with whatever I said... Good job.

See, now you're just blatantly being a dick. You know damn well that my references to buses and water fountains are to highlight how your claims towards 'justifying' discrimination are an echo of previously 'accepted' racial discrimination and I am pointing out to you that racial discrimination, being utterly wrong and hateful, is no different to discrimination based on your, or a baker's, disapproval of another persons lifestyle.

An establishment is not a person, and can't enforce or demand a discriminatory policy. Period... 

Now you're simply agreeing with my point. Are you even paying attention to the crap you're coming out with or is your hatred for 'others' so blinding, you've lost the ability to maintain coherent argument?

I still don't think you get it... What "rules of public trade" are you referencing? What are you talking about? You're making stuff up. The coffee shop owner can certainly choose not to serve ANY customer they wish as long as they aren't the only coffee shop in town... If they were the only coffee shop, sure... That would be restricting the customers ability to buy coffee, and that would be a violation of the customers right to trade...


15 U.S. Code § 13 - Discrimination in price, services, or facilities

- , That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade:

Hahahaha, wow, you are desperate, aren't you? Quoting 'U.S. Code Chapter 1 - MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE' as pretext for the right of a business to refuse trade. lol.

Discrimination against whom a business is willing to service is not a fucking 'Monopolies' issue! It is a discrimination issue!

Here, let me point you in the direction of information that is simple enough even you in your blind hatred of 'others' can still understand it.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

Which is *exactly* what I already said and to which you attempted to cite a fucking 'Monopolies' trade law to dispute it! Still, it made me laugh, so thanks for that.

[pungopete468]

If a person refuses to move from a bus seat because another person wants that seat, is it discrimination when the passenger already in the seat refuses to yield to the new passenger? A bus seat is a commodity, non-living, and indiscriminate, like a "product" or a "good". Labor on the other hand, is an expression, reflecting the choice of the laborer to produce something of value...

The fuck? That is the shonkiest, most twisted and warped bit of reasoning I have read in a long time. Seriously, it takes some effort to be so committed to dreaming up a 'justification' for hateful discrimination that you actually start to break it down into physical movement in order to desperately attempt to reach your point.

So you disagree then... I find it hillarious how illogical people can be when it suits their own causes... Like a selfish child crying out with pure emotion when they can't have a unicorn.

Oooh, great rebuttal of my criticism concerning your desperate attempt to disassemble your support of discrimination by breaking it down into component parts of physical movement. Projection much?

My analogy was plain and simple, If I'm sitting on a bus and you want my seat, you would feel justified in demanding that I move, regardless of race... Race is a but single example buried beneath a mountain of others, as outlined in this thread.

No, your analogy is false. Not only would I not feel justified in demanding that you move from your bus seat, even if I wanted to sit in that seat because of reasons, I would have no basis by which to demand you to vacate that seat. What point are you even trying to make here, that people are entitled to order other people out of a bus seat?

Please, I'll give you 0.1 btc if you can quote the part of my bus analogy which discriminates against any specific group. In my analogy, any person is free to sit in any open seat, no mention of water fountains. You've invented things that were never said because you want to hate what I said... That's discrimination, and it's irrationally mis-placed because you actually just attacked your own beliefs for no reason, you just wanted to disagree with whatever I said... Good job.

See, now you're just blatantly being a dick. You know damn well that my references to buses and water fountains are to highlight how your claims towards 'justifying' discrimination are an echo of previously 'accepted' racial discrimination and I am pointing out to you that racial discrimination, being utterly wrong and hateful, is no different to discrimination based on your, or a baker's, disapproval of another persons lifestyle.

An establishment is not a person, and can't enforce or demand a discriminatory policy. Period...  

Now you're simply agreeing with my point. Are you even paying attention to the crap you're coming out with or is your hatred for 'others' so blinding, you've lost the ability to maintain coherent argument?

I still don't think you get it... What "rules of public trade" are you referencing? What are you talking about? You're making stuff up. The coffee shop owner can certainly choose not to serve ANY customer they wish as long as they aren't the only coffee shop in town... If they were the only coffee shop, sure... That would be restricting the customers ability to buy coffee, and that would be a violation of the customers right to trade...


15 U.S. Code § 13 - Discrimination in price, services, or facilities

- , That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade:

Hahahaha, wow, you are desperate, aren't you? Quoting 'U.S. Code Chapter 1 - MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE' as pretext for the right of a business to refuse trade. lol.

Discrimination against whom a business is willing to service is not a fucking 'Monopolies' issue! It is a discrimination issue!

Here, let me point you in the direction of information that is simple enough even you in your blind hatred of 'others' can still understand it.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

Which is *exactly* what I already said and to which you attempted to cite a fucking 'Monopolies' trade law to dispute it! Still, it made me laugh, so thanks for that.

Sorry, you're mistaken again

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/
The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing.

Subsequent legislation expanded the role of the EEOC. Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now protected classes.

Apparently I was looking harder than you were, as the closest law I found relative to this analogy, which would directly impact a proprietors ability to choose a customer, was due to anti-monopoly laws. Show me the text of the law you're basing your argument on, not an opinion on it...

I'm following a rational method by reducing a problem into its component parts... How is that wrong or twisted? How can anybody ever hope to solve a problem without understanding the roots or components of the problem?

What point are you even trying to make here, that people are entitled to order other people out of a bus seat?

Now you're catching on! Movement is work, physical motion is labor... Nobody else is entitled to order another person to perform labor, no matter if they're in business or otherwise. To do so would be to subject that person to a dominance over their own free will... That's the foundation of my entire argument...

You understand that there's a difference between an establishment and the proprietors personal choices right? The proprietor can make their own choices, but not demand employees to make the same choice... How does identifying the limited bond between an establishment and a proprietor make for an incoherant argument?

Yes, I was being a dick. Intentionally... As were you.

I don't think you understand me. You've already put me in a category to which I don't belong... My personal choices aren't relative to the personal choices of any other. I have no reason to discriminate against another group, I've never considered any other ethnicity inferior. I don't see where you come off grouping me with those who have. I respect free will. I don't believe it within my or anybody elses authority to force another person to do something they don't want to do. I've said all I can say, we're just spinning wheels...

But seriously, I really do want to see the legal text that supports your argument. Show me the US code, not just one persons opinion on it...

[cryptodevil]

Movement is work, physical motion is labor... Nobody else is entitled to order another person to perform labor, no matter if they're in business or otherwise. To do so would be to subject that person to a dominance over their own free will... That's the foundation of my entire argument...

It is also complete and utter toss. The bakery, as a business, is not being subjected to the 'dominance' of its customers!

Your grasp of the legal entity a commercial operation represents appears to be extremely weak, as well as your understanding of law.

Here, let me explain, although I *really* shouldn't have to because it is that fucking obvious:

Apparently I was looking harder than you were, as the closest law I found relative to this analogy, which would directly impact a proprietors ability to choose a customer, was due to anti-monopoly laws.

Anti-monopoly laws are designed to prevent a business which is a monopoly from abusing that position and, here's the important part, the Anti-monolopy law is ONLY APPLICABLE TO BUSINESSES WHICH ARE MONOPOLIES! So quoting an exception to that law, which is what you did, is false because the statute does not apply to businesses which are not monopolies!

Now, you keep insisting in your wilful ignorance that I have to show you the law which prevents discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation. In the bakery's case it was this one: http://www.glapn.org/6007historyLGBTQrights.html#xxxOregonEqualityAct

Do you get it yet? Your rabid insistence that the bakery was being forced to labour is false because they could have simply shut the entire business down when they realised that anti-discrimination laws meant they would not be able to deny service to people they did not approve of. That they wished to operate as a commercial entity means they are unable to discriminate against their customers.

If they wanted to shut down and close the business they were and are perfectly entitled to do so, ergo, no 'forced' labour.