Discrimination should be 100% Legal

Note: I'm new to this, so excuse me if I screwed up the formatting or I'm not entirely professional or something. Also, I work two jobs so I may be slower in responding due to time constraints, but I'll make a conscious effort to be timely.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The right to discriminate is essential to the individual so that he is free to make decisions he determines best for himself; such as who to be friends with, who to marry, where to work and how to spend his money. None of these things could be better determined by anyone else. In 1848, Frederick Douglas illustrated this fantastically in his letter to his old master Thomas Auld while giving his justification for escaping his slavery: "I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons, equal persons. What you are, I am. You are a man, and so am I. God created both, and made us separate beings. I am not by nature bound to you, or you to me. Nature does not make your existence depend upon me, or mine to depend upon yours. I cannot walk upon your legs, or you upon mine. I cannot breathe for you, or you for me; I must breathe for myself, and you for yourself. We are distinct persons, and are each equally provided with faculties necessary to our individual existence. In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me, and in no way lessened your means for obtaining an honest living. Your faculties remained yours, and mine became useful to their rightful owner. I therefore see no wrong in any part of the transaction." [1]Later in his letter, Douglass goes on to reminisce about making his first free dollar to keep and being free for the first time in his life to spend it on whatever he deemed best. This individual economic freedom Douglass describes has been the essential ingredient for creating the largest economies in the world and even bringing an entire nation of people (China) out of devastating poverty to become the world's second largest economy! [2]But like Douglass wrote about, it's vital that individual freedom of associate be a universal princible, just as two people are both free to discriminate against all the people they know and choose their lives together. So what good reason is there in denying individuals the right to freely choose who they conduct business with or who they think would be the best fit as employees in their businesses? If an individual is free to decide for himself who he would like to work for and who he would like to purchase goods and services from, then so too should another individual be given the freedom to choose to whom he sells the products of his own labor to and to whom he deems best to employ in his labor. This is the princible of universality that must be in effect in order to uphold the case that, say, it's morally good to allow one individual the freedom to associate with anyone of his choosing. [3] If you grant one man the freedom to discriminate in choosing between businessmen to whom he would purchase goods/services from and associate with in a business relationship, how then do you justify the morality of simutaneously denying the businessmen the same freedoms? Because if you were to remove the universaliaty you end up with the horrofic existence in which Frederick Douglass escaped from.Sources[1] http://www.lettersofnote.com...[2] https://www.investopedia.com...[3] (First couple minutes or so)