Businesses Have a Right to Discriminate

Thank you for your interesting points. You write " A private business, while owned by someone privately, is a service that you provide to others. By selling a product or providing an active service you put yourself out there for criticism and legal punishment." Why do I lose rights because I decide to sell my services in a private business that I started? If I can do whatever I want within the confines of my own private property, that is not using force against someone else, why do I lose these rights once I potentially profit? Instead, I am now subject to government laws saying that I HAVE to sell to everyone or else they will lock me in jail? That doesn't seem very moral on any ground. Can't people make their own rational decisions without the threat of the government and their guns? You write "By discriminating against, say, a gay couple, you are not providing the service that you promised to provide and therefore, like in the case of infected food, not holding to your contract as a business." That is quite a leap. A restaurant is promising to not poison you and if they do, they are causing you physical harm. By not serving a gay couple, you are hurting their feelings. They are not physically harmed but offended. This is a major difference. You write "Freedom to choose is different from freedom to not provide for certain groups of people. A woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, a gay couple has the right to choose what happens to their future, but a business should not have the right to choose who they get to serve and who they don't, because by doing so you are indirectly choosing what happens to their body and their future, even if it's a very minimal difference." This seems to be a far stretch as well. If I don't serve (name the group) I am not causing them physical harm. I am offending them but...they still have numerous options. If my racist restaurant refuses to serve black people, don't they have gazillions more options for places to eat? Why do opponents of this policy seem to always suggest that people are losing out on a service that the market will freely provide? You write "The majority, heterosexuals, may still provide enough of an income for the business to succeed. This would mean that the bigots of society continue to prosper because they took advantage of a majority group that isn't affected by their discrimination." If a business is stupid enough to leave out a share of their customer base, then they will not prosper. Apart from the specific group they are bias against, they will also isolate their supporters and anyone concerned about being associated with them. I am not gay, but I would not eat in a restaurant that didn't serve gays simply because I abhor homophobia. But let's say I was okay with a little homophobia and my love for the restaurant trumped my indifference. I would then run the risk of being known as a homophobe. Gay people wouldn't want to do business with me if they knew I ate at a place that hated them. More importantly, the smart restaurants which didn't discriminate would benefit both financially, socially and politically in the long run. Let me paint you two hypothetical scenarios and I challenge you to tell me which of these is better for a healthier society and more open society: Scenario 1: A restaurant opens in any city which posts a sign that says "No Black People Allowed." This restaurant would be shunned by probably 95% of the population and stay in business for a short period of time. Scenario 2: A racist opens a restaurant but because of the fear of being thrown in jail, they are forced to serve everyone. Because he is a racist, he gives black people terrible service, spits in their food, ridicules them behind their backs and maybe gives some of his profits to racist organizations. I look forward to your rebuttal.