If you mandate a business has to serve minorities, you are forcing the business owner to associate with people he doesn't want to associate with. Is forced association civil? Leftists will never admit that government enforcement comes from the threat of use of force. Libertarians want rules. They just don't want the majority to live under a minority standard(forced onto them)

Stop with the "associating with people" language. You're trying to paint a very strange picture of the problem here. It's just a language game.

That's a nice way of sugarcoating the fact that you will have to threaten force against whoever doesn't want to associate with whatever entity they deny service to.

More crocodile tears about government force. They very same government force you would be happy to see if a perceived transgression against someone's property rights took place.

Sure it does. If a worker can only produce a value that is under the minimum wage, he/she can't find a job, as the government made it illegal. It literally mandates unemployment.

This makes no sense whatsoever. At least not in economic, social, political, etc. terms.

I guess we have different definitions of the word "tolerant". There is nothing tolerant about threatening force against people you disagree with. You're committing what is known as the tolerance paradox. You cannot tolerate others intolerance. Nothing civil about that.

I'm just trying to get at the actual issues we're discussing. You want to play language games.

When you don't let a business owner discriminate, you are denying the people the information

This is just nonsense. It's not about allowing or denying "information" it's about the regulation of a practice.

That means by forcing the bigot to associate with whoever he would have normally refused service to,