Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?

[Leinad]

TBH, I think businesses should be allowed to deny service to anybody for any reason

Yeah, I'd say this, but I'd encourage private citizens to protest discrimination.

I hate both discrimination and government forcing people to do things they don't want to do, because both are disasterous to society, but I don't think we have to choose between one or the other. Bigotry will still exist if there are laws against it, and societal pressure is a more powerful tool for shaping cultural attitudes towards things than government action ever will be.

I'm just opposed to the idea that government needs to actively punish something simply because it's "wrong," unless it's an objective crime (e.g. assault or theft--as terrible as bigotry is I don't think it counts) and I stay consistent with that admittedly "radical" conception of government. (Because I think it's correct.)

Then again...I sort of enjoy seeing people who, for so long, argued that something (marraige equality) shouldn't be allowed simply because their "morality" says it's wrong complain about getting punished because secular/objective morality says their behavior is wrong. "Shadenfreude" is the term.

[Leinad]

This is apparently the issue that will prevent Gary Johnson from getting the Libertarian presidential nomination:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/gary-johnson-jewish-bakers-should-be-forced-to-bake-nazi-cakes/

No, I think he'll win it anyway on his (quite impressive, even for "big party" standards) resume, but the awkwardness and moderation might hurt himself with some of the more purist vote.

[Leinad]

No.  And a Christian baker shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Let me put it this way: if a homosexual couple asks for a wedding cake from a Christian baker, and the baker refuses, then I'm OK with it, because preparing the cake would endorse/condone something that violates the baker's religious beliefs.  But if the homosexual couple in question simply asks for a dozen donuts and the baker refuses, then that would clearly be discrimination.  Providing donuts, cookies, etc. for an LGBT couple is different from baking a wedding cake for them, because one violated the baker's religious beliefs, and the other does not. 

Simply put: if the requested service violates a specific tenet of the merchant's religious beliefs, then they should be allowed to refuse.  But if it's a simple service like a dozen donuts, cookies, etc., or a simple meal, or something of that sort, then they should not be allowed to discriminate.

No, it can't be based on religion. That's a terrible place to draw the line.

I mean, what qualifies as "religious reasons?" If I claim to believe in a religion called "Buttonism" and it was "against my religious beliefs to serve people who didn't wear a shirt with buttons," could I do that, in your world? And if not, is that not government discriminating (something I, and the Constitution, very much oppose) against Buttonism?

I know your position is that of many conservatives today (that government forcing people to not discriminate is alright, unless it's a--horror of horrors--same-sex wedding), but I think that that position is inconsistent in only including some forms of discrimination. In a way, it's discrimination by government, which is obviously wrong and, as I said before, unconstitutional.

Services should not be required to be rendered unto anyone.

Translation: business owners should be allowed to ban blacks from their businesses.

Nice try, but I would argue that any business that provides a service to people is by definition public, and therefore can be regulated by the government.  It doesn't have to be government owned for the government to pass laws regarding their conduct.

Interesting argument, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The idea that government has control over anything that is vaguely "public" might be the most statist thing I've ever heard (even including support for the draft, death penalty, etc.).

[Leinad]

regulation ≠ control

Eh, I guess, but regulation is merely a lesser form of control. It's the same thing, just in different quantities, and government is a machine for turning inches into miles, to borrow and alter the expression.

I don't want people to be forced to do anything... but refusing service to people for things they can't control (like being gay) should be illegal.

Nazism is completely voluntary and is an ideology.  Being gay is innate sexuality.

Apples and oranges, dead0.

Of course it's different, so it's a silly question. (But I think that's partially the idea of the thread?)

I'd agree that bigotry is bad and should obviously be punished by someone. But (and this applies to everything) I don't think the question should be "should this be done?" but "should this be done by government?" A major difference between libertarians and everyone else is that we ask the second question all the time, while everyone else seems to ask the first question for most issues. I think it's best to ask the second question and err on the side of "probably not" due to the theoretically near-absolute power government has (I think of the George Washington quote--"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master") and also due to the fact that societal pressure is often more effective than legislation.