I'm glad to hear you agree that if someone comes to your store and starts saying offensive things that they can be kicked out. But this is more than that. This is requesting your services in the line of directly supporting an activity that goes against your deep moral and religious convictions. This is about refusing service for proven request for an offensive activity, not refusing service to a person. Activities are not persons endowed with inalienable rights. This is not refusing to provide food to people. It's about refusing to engage in the activity of providing food for a wedding - not food for a person or people. Demanding that food be catered specifically for such an activity is a violation of one's inalienable right to refuse to participate in the activity. We may disagree what construes participation, but I think legally the only way that such a request for participation would be construed and rightly denied, is if a person is asked and informed to specifically engage in the direct support of a specific offending activity. This is no different than a Jewish business owner being asked to cater a neo nazi rally by making a "kosher" swaztika cake, and the Jewish business owner politely declining and referring the request to another business. Your application of the right course of action would seem to demand such a Jewish business owner be forced, yes forced, or fined for refusal, to make a swaztika cake for the rally. In other words, if the business owner is directly informed and given direct proof either via the requesting party or other means that can be proven in a court of law, that their services are requesting to be directly rendered in support of such an activity, such a business owner has the inalienable right of refusal, whether its legislated or not. After all, isn't that what a business boycott is - businesses refusing to do business in a state because it doesn't want to "support" offensive activities in that state? But again, the examples above are way more than even this. This is forcing a Jew to knowingly and directly engage in a morally offensive religious activity by requesting them to make a swaztika cake for a neo nazi rally. Or forcing a black baker to make a cross cake for a KKK rally. Or forcing a gay business owner to make a cake that says "marriage is between one man and one woman." This isn't about refusing service because one "thinks" their service is being rendered offensively. There is no legal proof in "think." A gay couple could and should be able to walk into a bakery and order a cake, and as long as its not revealed the purpose for the cake, or can be legally proven that its for an offensive activity, the business owner should render service. No one has a problem with that. But telling the business owner its for an offensive activity, or later he finds out from a provable eyewitness in court that his service is being rendered in direct support of an activity he finds morally and religiously offensive, then he should have the inalienable right to cease rendering such service, and would have a legal right to refuse future anonymous requests from the same exact parties in the future.

You bring up a kkk business owner refusing to make a cake in the explicit and provable in court knowledge of its use for a specific interracial marriage celebration. I may disagree vehemently with the owner's views, but forcing him to knowingly participate in the direct service of an offensive activity is more wrong than his refusal to engage in it. Making someone do something they consider wrong, is more wrong than a person doing wrong by refusing to do an activity. One is an act of slavery with the more socially acceptable taskmasters whip of a fine. The other is simply refusing to move.