However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

The mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty (and thus Rights) is themselves or by extension their property. While "property" is purely a social construct, the jurisdiction of a persons Rights must still apply to a person's property since we can only truly coexist in a respectful way under a social contract that includes such property Rights (unless we grow beyond the concept, though I can't imagine how). Nevertheless, Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction) and thus can't possibly be contingent on extrinsic circumstances.

So I guess this is a question of who's Rights are being infringed (potentially). Does the store owner have the right to refuse service based on their discrimination? Does the prospective buyer have the right to not be discriminated against?

Seriously, not sure about that one.

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

The mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty (and thus Rights) is themselves or by extension their property. While "property" is purely a social construct, the jurisdiction of a persons Rights must still apply to a person's property since we can only truly coexist in a respectful way under a social contract that includes such property Rights (unless we grow beyond the concept, though I can't imagine how). Nevertheless, Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction) and thus can't possibly be contingent on extrinsic circumstances.

So I guess this is a question of who's Rights are being infringed (potentially). Does the store owner have the right to refuse service based on discrimination? Does the prospective buyer have the right to not be discriminated against?

Seriously, not sure about that one.

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

The mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty (and thus Rights) is themselves or by extension their property. While "property" is purely a social construct, the jurisdiction of a persons Rights must still apply to a person's property since we can only truly coexist in a respectful way under a social contract that includes such property Rights (unless we grow beyond the concept, though I can't imagine how). Nevertheless, Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction) and thus can't possibly be contingent on extrinsic circumstances.

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

The mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty (and thus Rights) is themselves or by extension their property. While "property" is purely a social construct, the jurisdiction of a persons Rights must still apply to a person's property since we can only truly coexist in a respectful way under a social contract that includes such property Rights (unless we grow beyond the concept, though I can't imagine how). Nevertheless, Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction).

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

The mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty is themselves or by extension their property. While "property" is purely a social construct, the jurisdiction of a persons Rights must still apply to a person's property since we can only truly coexist in a respectful way under a social contract that includes such property Rights (unless we grow beyond the concept, though I can't imagine how). Nevertheless, Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction).

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

I'm not sure about that one, but the mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty is themselves or by extension their property. While "property" is purely a social construct, the jurisdiction of a persons Rights must still apply to a person's property since we can only truly coexist in a respectful way under a social contract that includes such property Rights (unless we grow beyond the concept, though I can't imagine how). Nevertheless, Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction).

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

I'm not sure about that one, but the mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty is themselves or by extension their property. However "property" is purely a social construct, but the jurisdiction of a persons Rights must still apply to a person's property since we can only truly coexist in a respectful way under a social contract that includes such property Rights (unless we grow beyond the concept, though I can't imagine how). Nevertheless, Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction).

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

I'm not sure about that one, but the mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty is themselves or by extension their property. However "property" is purely a social construct, but the jurisdiction of a persons Rights must still apply to a person's property since we can only truly coexist under a social contract that includes such property Rights. Nevertheless, Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction).

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

I'm not sure about that one, but the mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty is themselves or by extension their property. However "property" is purely a social construct, but the jurisdiction of a persons Rights must still apply to property since we can only truly coexist under a social contract that includes such property Rights. Nevertheless, Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction).

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

I'm not sure about that one, but the mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty is themselves or by extension their property. However "property" is purely a social construct, but the jurisdiction of a persons Rights still applies since we can only truly coexist under a social contract that includes such property Rights. Nevertheless, Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction).

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

I'm not sure about that one, but the mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty is themselves (or by extension their property, though that is purely a social construct, but it still applies since we can only truly coexist under a social contract that includes such property Rights), thus Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction).

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

I'm not sure about that one, but the mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional. The jurisdiction of a persons Sovereignty is themselves, thus Rights are intrinsic to the person (that jurisdiction).

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

I'm not sure about that one, but the mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.

Rights are not conditional.

However, forcing someone to conduct a business transaction against their will is hardly being for individual freedom, wouldn't you say?

It's tricky, and I'm not sure. On the one hand, forcing someone to sell to anyone might be bad. The "Right to refuse service to anyone" does sound kind of right, so perhaps. However, I have been kicked out of grocery stores for not wearing a mask. My right to purchase food and not die of starvation was infringed because they disagreed with my beliefs about masks. So is there really a "Right to refuse service to anyone?"

I'm not sure about that one, but the mask issue was what I had in mind when I wrote it. I'm fairly sure that refusing to sell me food because I believe masks are harmful is a violation of my Rights. I certainly felt like my rights were infringed.

I'm just not sure.

For example, if two consenting adults agree to have sex that is good and fine. However, if one does not consent and the act of sex is carried out it is now called rape and that is wrong.

I'm don't think this applies to the above conundrum.

By the way, in the case of the wedding cake example, the business owners were being commissioned to make a creative work. It wasn't just selling a premade cake to a couple of gays. Does this change your perspective of the case?

No, either they have the right to refuse service or they don't. What the service is is irrelevant.