It comes from Locke, actually, and the third right enumerated was explicitly "property". But this is strawmanning anyway. I'm not saying the government has the right to seize property (that's covered quite explicitly under the fourth amendment). I'm saying that there is no right to operate a public business without regulation.

And sometimes regulation says "you can't police what your customers say with your product". Which is why I have a hard time taking some people seriously on this argument, which is so precisely analogous to the Twitter situation where they stand on the other side.

(FWIW: I think Masterpiece v. Colorado was absolutely correctly decided. Twitter doesn't have to put anything on their cakes that they don't want to say.)

Sorry, I'm a little confused by your post(I didn't follow this story originally and was, um, indisposed when it all happened so I don't know any of the larger social discussions that occured at the time other than a few newspaper articles). I'm was raised by hippies to be a diehard libertarian with a son who has had a lot of judgements and pain in his life because of who he is (and who he is is amazing so f all yall who judge him without knowing him). So this is kind of an existential crisis for me. I'm really really grateful to read all these thoughts.

I was absolutist about individual rights. But this discuss has me seeing that the absolutist view can allow people to be denied basic freedoms too (like how blacks were in the past). Each side is actually advocating for rights in this scenario, no matter which side I take. Before I would say the government can't limit rights, so tough luck to people who have theoretic constitutional rights but can't actually take advantage of those rights because society as a whole denies them to them over something arbitrary (race, sexual preference). Now I'm not sure. Our Government was created to ensure rights are protected from the tyranny of the majority as much as to protect from government tyranny (hence religious freedoms, freedom of speech, etc). This discussion has me seeing that protecting protected classes need a way that they can actually experience the rights given to them by the constitution and that is no different than the government enforcing freedom of religion.

I'm kind of at the point of seeing that past freedoms (to discriminate) resulted in non government imposed limiting of peoples (minorities, those with non-standard sexual preferences) basic freedoms (freedom to travel, be in public life, associate, have the same life experiences as others).

I think you are saying that businesses shouldn't have compelled speech but that the government can regulate business so that protected classes have their basic rights to enjoy/live life actually made available?

Sorry, not trying to be dense, just possibly adjusting some major life long beliefs.