Okay, so arguing antidiscrimination laws made me think of this.
If a business that unknowingly provides a product or service to someone they would otherwise deny that product or service to had they known about the purchaser's intended use, but they find out about it later, should they be able to sue the customer for use of their product at an event they would not have endorsed had they known?
Examples (assumption is that each seller would have denied service had they known more about the future use of the item):
KKK member purchases cake for KKK rally. Doesn't inform the baker (it isn't like they are all identifiable as KKK members and nothing was written on cake).
KKK member purchases wood and/or gasoline or other supplies from hardware store. Definitely wouldn't say what it was used for.
Gay gay orders cake for anniversary, at least one name is androgynous. Posts pictures after on face book celebrating event or baker finds out from someone else the guy is gay and married.
Gay guy has sister order cake for his wedding, pretending to be the one getting married.
Interracial couple order cake for their wedding via a parent, claiming the couple is going to be out of town til the wedding/live somewhere else, and that she is making all the arrangements because they suspect (and with this as part of my questioning, quite rightly) that the bakery is run by someone who disapproves morally of interracial marriage.
Interracial couple really does live out of town and is having a parent take care of the arrangements and they simply didn't feel it was an important detail.
So, should the provider of the goods or services listed above be able to sue based on defamation of their product or something to that affect, for someone using their product at an event they would not approve of had they known? Does type of deceit matter? Maybe whether they are protected explicitly or not by a law or doctrine of the state? What if there was no actual intended deceit, they simply didn't share information?