For the record, I'm not a free market fundamentalist. I don't think markets are the "answer" to anything, I think they are a necessary consequence of property rights. Markets do not solve all problems, nor should that be the goal. In fact, I would argue that solving all problems shouldn't even be the goal. There is a higher principle.

I believe in man as a free moral agent and that the highest philosophical principles are autonomy and liberty. I believe in unqualified self-ownership, and that results in the right to property (one's own body and labor and their fruits being property). It is this dedication to property rights and self-ownership that gives rise to supporting markets. I do not support markets because they are efficient or "better" at doing something than a non-market approach. I support markets because they are a direct result of property rights, and infringing on markets infringes on property rights.

That said, I believe that nobody has the right to infringe on the property rights of others, so I support restrictions on liberty which would cause harm to other people or their property (or the communal property of the environment, for example). This is why it is OK to regulate markets to protect property and to protect the market mechanism itself.

Refusing to serve someone, for any reason, does not directly harm them, it merely fails to enrich them. I believe it is immoral to force a person to provide a service to another. It is stealing their labor (their property). A human's labor must be given voluntarily, otherwise it is slavery. Voluntarily means in exchange for what they themselves decide is adequate compensation. You will recognize this as resulting in a "free" market for goods and services. They might discount for me for any number of reasons, that's up to them, however.

This new law will require that I purchase health "insurance" (it's not really insurance at all, but that's another topic). I either purchase it through my employer or I'm forced to get it from the government. It forces me to surrender my property to buy something that I might not want. Whether YOU think I SHOULD want it is entirely beside the point.

In my view of the world, people are fallible. What you call "poison", others may call "tasty" or "enjoyable". Who is right here? I maintain that we can't know. If you think cigarettes are poison, don't smoke them. But it is extremely arrogant to assume that you should make this decision for everyone. Since we are fallible, I believe we must allow people to make decisions for themselves, even if they decide things that we think are ridiculous (as long as they don't infringe on their fellows). You seem to feel that, at least as far as health care and "poisons" are concerned, you know what's best for everyone and are willing to use the legislature and ultimately the police to see your will imposed on others.

Isn't there a way for us to each pursue our own vision of the good life? That is the fundamental goal of the philosophy of liberty. I consider it the highest goal.

Let me opt out of your utopian central planning and then do what you will. But let's be honest here: "universal" health care means that health care is forced upon me whether I want it or not (or whether I want to pay for it or not).