Not a problem the interviewer had the big guy all turned around

But how does he represent an entire community? You presented that video as a counterargument to the fact that the LGBT community aren't forcing beliefs on other people.

A choice in what? To serve someone or not in the business they built?

I can't think of that many situations were people couldn't avoid eachother ... in a jail cell, in a jury box  ...

I'm talking about the consumer. They should have the right to walk into a public establishment and be treated the same as everyone else.

If they built that land on a separate property not affiliated with the United States, then they can enforce their bigotry. But they're apart of a nation that has established laws and people here have rights. They can't simply ignore that.

Would you be saying the same thing if a black man walked into a barber shop and the barber rejected his service because of his race? Is that more acceptable?

Maybe in regards to a 1 on 1 basis, but we're talking about millions upon millions of people. Conflicts are bound to happen. It's inevitable. 

People can't just walk into places asking "Does this place support homosexuals? Am I allowed to be here?" Do you seriously think people should have to do that? How is that right in any sense?

He is an idividual in said community (or at least for the purposes of the video he plays as one) I didn't say he was representative of the whole community.  You said "The cuts in the video didn't make the opposition look foolish. The opposition made the opposition look foolish." so those individuals on the side of the oppostion represent the whole of the opposition? Is that your view?

The only answer to this question must be yes, which is precisely what is wrong with the libertarian position. It's ironic that libertarians use the exact same arguments that racists used to use to defend jim crow laws in the south. This is why people like Rand Paul have effectively said that the Civil Rights Act's provision dealing with private business was essentially a bad idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS_qya7w0hs

It's very simple. Just like with any formal system, you create axioms, or exceptions to the rules. Yes, we have the principle of free enterprise, where anyone is allowed to control their business however they wish, including charging whatever prices they wish. Since this principle, when unregulated, results in a state of affairs that is undesirable for society, we regulate it. In the case of private business, it resulted in applying the fourteenth amendment's equal protection under the law to private businesses. The result is businesses now are obligated to accept minorities as patrons, rather than reject them. This is a boon for society. To reject real progress because it flies in the face of your principles is foolish. The progress shouldn't change, your principles should because they're wrong.

At that point it becomes a matter of property rights vs. anti-discrimination.  If one is a liberal in a classical sense then they will believe that the owner has the private property right over the store and its goods, as well as themselves so they should be free to sell to whomever they wish. On the other hand, modern liberals believe in the concept of positive liberty where one is only free in so much that they are able to reach their projected ends. A classical liberal would argue that you can't have everybody be free in that circumstance, because in order for one group or person to reach their projected ends another must be limited. It gets very complicated, but basically the argument is how strongly does one have rights to their property? Personally, as a propertarian I think it is consistent to say that all people have full rights to themselves and their property and should be able to choose how they live their own lives and use their own property unless they restrict other people's usage of themselves and their property in some way (i.e stealing from them, enslaving them, or murdering them.) Since, in my opinion, discrimination would be very miniscule if it weren't for government mandating it (see discrimination in Northern states in 30-50's vs. Southern States) I think it is more harmful to society to weaken one's rights to their property and their liberty (what they can do with their things and with whom they do it.) I also think such laws make things so much more complicated, like identifying who truly is a respectable business owner and who isn't. That makes it a lot harder for me to make proper market decisions about who I want to give my money to so that they can profit. 

1. Yes I am aware I was putting in hypotheticals, however you were getting it to the point where you make it sound like the bakery is the wedding planner. I know churches can refuse wedding, on the flip side there were gay wedding at churches long before it legal under the law.

The big questions. 1. Does it really matter whether or not it is the same as other people's religious views? not all religions are recognised and some states tried to ban other religious laws. 2. Why do the views even have to be religious?  well acourding to the new law in Indiana they do. 3. Why can't people refuse to do something based on their personal morals and ethic system?  While many people can refuse service to anyone, it's why and how they do it that can be the issue. When you have established a business in our society there are pocedures you need to go through and rules you have to follow. Or there can be legal repricussions. There are ways for pepole who want to refuse to do things based on their own personal beleif systems, stay outside the system that doesn't allow for them to discriminate based on them.

2. Gay here as well, still think it was stupid. Yes they might view it as a cosequence of gay marrage but it's still a serarate issue. Yes desire for the law didn't come out of nothing, but it's still going through a legislature and not from the people.

I don't expect the government to take care of the oppressed I demand it, I fight for it sometimes things go well sometimes not. Prop 8 passed here in CA in 2008 by the will of the people but the courts are what struck it down. Yes governments have also done much wrong, but there are tools there that are more efective than boycott after boycott pressuring one busineess after another. Especially when sometime now there is a market for those who do descriminate.