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?

You say "You have to sell your product to everyone who wants to buy it, unless it's a unique artistic expression".

Or you have a concrete reason for not selling the products yes

Not that statement, but the 2 before. "Would that not be an acceptable contract?" No the stipulations I'm making are about the product. "So it has nothing to do with the agreement?" No, it has to do with the agreement about the product being produced itself.

things along the lines of lacking inventory or time

So you can force someone to do business when they don't want to.

or having the validity of payment be in question

Yes thats how it works

They have to have a good reason why not.

Who decides what a good reason is?

The American government? That's a fine decision making body, innit?

We're talking about principles. I've already showed you what constitutes a good reason

Better than corporations\

Right, and your principle is, the person who sells goods doesn't get to decide who to sell their products to based off their desires.

Why?

Because companies should not concern themselves with what their customers believe or do in their private lives

The root of that is because of the danger of businesses blocking people out of their services due to arbitrary characteristics. If you are a Right Winger and go to a left wing area that has the ability to deny service arbitrarily, you can be blocked from using anything in the area. They would effectively force you out of town through their market power.

People shouldn't care about what other people do?

Do you think Walmart is allowed to deny service to black people in your AnCap utopia? If you think so then we've arrived at the final thread of the discussion. We probably won't get anything else useful in this line of thought if we disagree on that.

Companies should not concern themselves with what their customers do because that would require companies to be aware of their customer's private lives

Being black is not an action

So, people have a right to services?