So far the totality of your argument has been "people must do what bilby says they must do". Why must people who trade their labor for pay provide that service for every person who might wish to hire them? Isn't that called involuntary servitude?
Nope, it's called non-discrimination in business. Nobody is forced to run a business; but once they do run a business, they are forced to obey a huge number of rules - about any number of things: book-keeping, non-discrimination, employee health and safety, taxation, labelling, health inspections, etc., etc. If they don't like the rules, they are free to choose not to run a business.
You are still dodging my basic question,"why must people who trade their labor for pay (be compelled to) provide that service for every person who might wish to hire them?" Why is it just that the State impose its version of "non-discrimination" (the abrogation of the freedom of contract) on a person? Telling us that nobody is forced to run a business and that they are already forced to obey "any number of things" is an accurate observation, it as true of Nazi Germany, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, or the Soviet Union as it is in Colorado. That does not mean that all, some, or any of those "number of things" must be morally just, does it? So far all you are advancing is the circular "argument" that "whatever rule exists is backed by compulsion and must be okay because I, Bilby, observed they EXIST and that they must be obeyed!".
Finally, at least on a moral and normative basis it is a form of involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is unjust coercion to force someone to labor on to benefit another. Punishing people who don't wish to sell their services for gay marriage celebrations, and denying them the right to pursue their livelihood if they don't, is coercive and involuntary servitude in the service of another party - in this case to gays wanting wedding cakes.
(But as you compared your "non-discrimination" rule to be the same as a requirement for business book-keeping, I would be most curious about how a rule to prevent fraud is the same as a rule to force the provision of wedding cakes to anyone.)
The message is irrelevant to the baker. If that message breaks the law - for example if it constitutes a credible threat to the life of the President - then it is the person who requested the message who is at fault. AT&T are not at fault if their wires carry illegal messages. They have neither the duty, nor the right, to censor their customers.
Nonsense
First, your analogy has already been imploded. "ATT" provides telecommunication lines, not speech or content. In this case the baker is being asked to CREATE the message agreeable to a client, not just to deliver it. In this analogy ATT and Pillsbury do not create content, so they should not held "liable" because they had no role in creation of the actual message or artistic expression. On the other hand, if ATT, a writer or artist does create criminal speech, even if on behalf of another, they can be held liable (aka a "conspiracy").
Second, the fact that the law exempts telephone companies from their user's speech if it used for criminal purposes says NOTHING about the right of a person to create, or refuse to create, an expression or speech (regardless of that speech's legality). Moreover, THERE IS NO DUTY because of the right of providers of telecommunications services to permit OR prohibit users from using their services to send content; it is
precisely because they are not owned by the government and are commercial that gives them the right to banish speech. When a user clicks "I agree" it is a contractual relationship between provider and user.
Lastly, the message is not irrelevant to the baker's rights because you declare it must be so. The first amendment establishes a principle that you (apparently) dismiss, the idea that the government can make NO LAW on the EXERCISE of free speech or press - the word exercise being the right of a speaker, writer or artist to choose which speech or expression he/she creates OR chooses not to create notwithstanding any state law to the contrary. The First Amendment "includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all," the court has said, and that applies even more strongly to forcing people to create symbolic messages they don't agree with.
The government violates a persons freedom of mind and freedom of speech when it compels a person to honor the flag by saluting, just as it does when it compels a baker to honor a gay marriage by creating a wedding cake.
Other than the fact you don't care about free speech, you have told us nothing.
Or perhaps you have understood nothing because your biases are getting in the way of your reading comprehension.
I care deeply about free speech. It is not, however, a concept that can rationally apply to a business venture, company or corporation. Free speech is for real human persons, acting on their own cognisance. If you run a business, then you have the right,
as a person, to say whatever crazy shit you like - but your business does not have the right to refuse to trade with a customer for the sole reason of disliking that customer's message. That would be a contravention of the customer's free speech.
Actually you were quite clear in your hostility to free speech, answering yes to every form of government compelled speech I questioned. And you end your post with the same tripe you keep asserting, without offering a parsley sprig of justification. The questions linger - why cant free speech apply to a person in business? Since when are owner-bakers not "real human persons"? How can they "act on their own cognizance" and exercise free speech/expression if YOU support laws that forbid it?
Since "your business" is YOU, your labor and property, why don't you have a right to refuse trade because you do not wish to support another's point of view? If as a baker you don't own yourself you own nothing - apparently you think the government (or the buyer) owns you.
Finally, you have no understanding of the philosophical or moral meaning of free speech (and freedom of the press). It is the right of people to speak, write, and express any thought or criticism in political-social-religious life (or refuse to do so), without being subject to criminal or civil government coercion or a need for permission (including licensing). It means that any person can endorse or criticize any law, custom, or opinion.
Whether or not a newspaper, religion, publishing company, artist, singer, or theater group is organized for trade (a business) is irrelevant - ALL have a right to free speech.
And yes, the gay folks also have a right to free speech, to bake a cake or find willing agents to do - but they should not have a right to force others to speak on their behalf, even if they are willing to pay them for it.
