Private entities ought to be able to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, etc.

Sorry for the forfeit. I am not interested in what American's think is a "BAD IDEA". I am interested in maximizing personal liberty. In doing so you may go against the majority opinion. In the end it doesn't matter if it makes someone angry or if someone thinks it's unfair just so it is not taking away from their essential liberties. Again, we are arguing "ought" to, not the law or the opinion of society now. A person owns their property. If they start a business on that property it should be up to them how they want to run that business. They should be allowed to run it to the extent that they don't initiate violence or commit fraud on another party. You are allowed to pick and choose who you allow into your home why should it be any different for a person to pick and choose who they want to allow into their business? Banning a certain group of people for whatever reason, no matter how stupid, may be bad for business, but the ultimate decision comes down to the owner of the property. My story holding no water is actually good for me. I am glad to hear most people will give a person a chance no matter the color of their skin. That only strengthens my argument that no government intervention is needed. If employers know that majority of people don't care about skin color they will not worry about who they hire and the problem won't exist. So, thanks for helping me out on that point. No bureaucrat needs to get involved when society will handle the situation. You didn't refute my story of Billy Bob. If society is as accepting as you say then would you honestly expect people to buy and work at a store than has a "Whites Only" sign posted outside? I certainly wouldn't, would you? "We've already seen recently how bad the economy can get without government action" "economy" "without government action" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *catches breath* You honesty think the government hasn't had their hand in the economy for the last, I dunno, 80 to 90 years? And you call yourself a Libertarian? This debate is not on the economy, but I'd suggest you visit some sites like the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Cato Institute if you honestly believe our markets have been without heavy government intervention. As for the Little Rock 9, I agree government intervention was acceptable. I'm not a fan of public schools but since they are a government entity they should not be allowed to discriminate. This is a debate regarding private institutions. I am not saying we should transfer money to pretty people. I am saying pretty people tend to be better for certain jobs and will get hired over an ugly person solely for their looks. Because most jobs involve working with other people a company would want a pretty face to represent them. As a result pretty people may tend to be more successful. I'm saying it should be entirely up to the market what characteristics are desired by what employees. TL;DR Private property means private. The owner of said property ought to be allowed to use it how they see fit, just so they are not initiating violence or fraud on another party. Denying a job position for whatever reason, no matter how dumb or bad for business it is, it not force or fraud. You yourself said people really don't care about skin color. That's a good thing, That means the majority of the people opening businesses won't hire based on stupid reasons like skin color. If a handful do I'd expect all those good people not to be a part of their business. I wouldn't buy from a store with a "Whites Only" sign out front, would you? No government intervention is required to take care of the problem. And even if it was needed it doing to would be taking away the right of a person to do with their property as they see fit. Remember though, that doesn't mean just because a person owns a gun they can do with it what they please a shoot someone. In that sense they would be taking another parties right to life. A business can force violence or fraud someone, but anything else ought to be fair game, even if it doesn't seem so "fair".