No, when you provide a service you must provide it farily and to all

If the request breaks the law then the vendor/creator should not do it

But in this case it would make sense that the service to provide custom to order cakes would fall under the same limitations

Why must I provide a service to everyone when I provide a service to anyone?

Depends on the service. Restaurants shouldn't be able to refuse to give someone pasta unless they violate some kind of rule. But custom services that express a message should be able to be rejected if the message that is being asked that the servicer expresses is something they don't want to do.

Provide it to those whom you are able to so long as you have no resource limitations or time restrictions

If the bakery bakes people blue cakes on demand, they shouldn't be able to refuse, but if the bakery bakes people custom cakes, then they should be able to reject

Because otherwise people would be able to deny service based on arbitrary measures such as political orientation

Didnt vote democrat? no twitter account for you

So, then, I can refuse to sell someone a burger if I argue that my actions during that exchange constitute artistic expression?

No. There is no overt message in a burger.

The margins for "expressive services" should be very narrow

Ah, but there is a message in my actions during the process of selling a burger.

So only certain *kinds* of expressions are protected.

in business all transactions carry some sort of message

Some expressions should be protected, but others should be policed.

There is no message in selling a burger that is unique. Any message that is being seen in selling a burger is the same as any other sale in the vacuum of ignoring who is buying.

Ah, so only unique messages are protected?

A unique expression inherent in the sale of a custom service.

Repeatable or generic artistic expression can be forced to be provided.

Generally ill draw the line at luxury goods

If you can't see any difference in the product from person to person then it is not expressing anything distinct

And yet porn is still protected under free speech laws.

There is no justice.

The seller of a burger has already agreed to "express" their sale of a burger. A custom cake baker did not consent to the expression of nazi propaganda if someone asks for that kind of cake.

Actually nix that luxury goods line

The issue is that the seller is has not previously consented to express all messages that may come from a custom cake request, but a seller of a burger has consented to the singular expression of the sale of a burger.

The main issue with protecting artistic expression is that the lines are far too gray with it

So, what if someone only agrees to sell to the people they feel like?

Would that not be an acceptable contract?

Then were back at denying requests based on political alignment

No, cause the delineation of why they are selling to some people has to be based on the product itself

It's not about the expression being artistic in nature. It's about the established rules for what a seller has consented to sell. A black artist could be selling paintings of his dog and shouldn't be able to refuse selling to anyone. He has consented to the sale of paintings of his dog. If that same black artist says they will sell paintings of customers dogs, and a customer sends a picture of a dog with "I HATE NIGGERS" shaved into his back, he can refuse that service because he did not consent to painting that previously.

So it has nothing to do with agreement.

It has to do with the agreement of sale of the product.

Not the people

Well, apparently the seller isn't allowed to stipulate who they sell to.

You have to sell to everyone who has the money to buy, or else.

You are not listening to me.

Unless they have a better reason than "i dont like that person"

What about that statement is inaccurate to what you're saying?