To to respect an individual’s autonomy is to allow an individual to develop opinions, make choices, and act as they please, unless their actions are clearly detrimental to others. Refusing to serve you, the customer, is not detrimental to you. Also, forcing business owners to serve customers they don't want to is detrimental to the human respect we should have for each other.

Refusing service is definitely detrimental to the person who wasn't able to get the service done. Performing the service wouldn't be detrimental to the business owner since they are making money which is what they set out to do when they opened their business.

This is because if a business openly declares itself as discriminatory, those discriminated against and their allies can readily give patronage to businesses that approve of them.

How is having to form a group to find a new place to get a service done not detrimental? Instead of just being able to get goods and services now you have to go around finding new places to get your goods and services.

If businesses were not penalized for being honest, customers would be able to make more educated decisions.

This doesn't make sense. You just got through explaining that they were being penalized for being "honest".

Secondly, it is detrimental to the business owner's autonomy to force them to do business against their will.

It would be, but they agreed to perform those services. They are being forced to perform a service according to their will.

They became entrepreneurs because they want to be their own boss, but when the government forces people to associate with each other, they have become servants of the state.

No, they have become servants of they customers they set out to serve.

In my own house, I can choose to kick anyone out for any reason, and that is just. Why is it any different when the place is a privately owned business? The owner pays rent and utilities. They should be able to set the rules, because they own the place, just as you own your home.

You don't sell a product.

I would like to make a distinction here, because my opponents might tell us that sometimes the government is right to make us do things for the greater good, but that would be a subtle lie.

Except the first time this happened when they forced white people to serve black people. That has worked out very well.

The government is sometimes right to tell us what NOT to do (i.e. laws against murder) to keep us from an action, but the government is wrong to make us perform an action, (i.e. You shall live in Wisconsin, you shall buy broccoli, you shall hire this man), the exception being taxes.

What about paying someone for services rendered? Do you think the entrepreneur might benefit from the government protection involved with making sure they can collect money from individuals?

Thirdly, if everyone was forced to do business with people they didn't want to, the customers would have to abide by the same rules. Imagine if the roles were reversed..."You didn't come to my business because we're Muslim owners. You must receive a punishment." Choice would become obsolete. There would be no such thing as choice. Such a world could only exist if there was a higher power, in which case our topic of autonomy is meaningless.

People don't enter into an agreement to buy items until they show up ready to buy. People who sell products agree to sell before they meet their customers.

Finally, businesses usually have good intentions if they turn a customer away.

No, it is usually done for good reasons. If it is done for bad reasons, regardless of intentions, then the government should step in.

They are appealing to a certain demographic and trying to make that demographic feel at home, much as a fancy diner turns customers without shirts away to put the targeted customers at ease.

No, that's a hygiene issue. That is also not discrimination based on beliefs or something they can't change.

You may not agree with his/her logic, but if you respect free speech, you have to allow him/her to disagree with you.

He can say whatever he wants as he makes the cake. Free speech is not free action. Otherwise I can claim punching people in the face is free speech. All I would have to do is claim that my intention is to knock some sense into them. That would help them out, so my intentions are good. You can disagree with my logic all you want, but I am entitled to free speech.

Of course you would support them. You love Christians and hate gays. the rights of gay come before Christians rights to believe in their vile, fairy tale bull shit. Christians are scum. They are nazi ratbags. They deserve no rights.

Just because you are associated with a group that 2000 years ago was anti-gay doesn't mean that you are anti-gay. Nor does it even imply that the entire group as a whole is anti-gay.

I agree with the private property idea, but at work your aim is to get money (and perhaps enjoy yourself depending on your job). Any customers who appear should be accepted because they are your life. Also- business owners do have a right to their opinions, but it's not an obligation to openly voice them.