The laws you're talking about happened half a century ago. The changes were made over several decades and we as a society are generally progressive enough that bigotry doesn't fly. So yes, I believe the free market is the best way. And to the point that Rand Paul said, the Civil Rights Act did good things, so I'm not saying the bad outweighed the good. But as a society in which socially conservative and old-fashioned views are antiquated, we don't need anti-discrimination laws. IMHO.
I do believe that discrimination is a right. I wouldn't use it, but it is a right. It's mean, but it's a right. By comparison (brace yourself, this may be a bad analogy but if it is I'd like to know why) free speech is also a right even when the speech is offensive. Nobody can force the Westboro Baptist Church to remove or change their shirts that say "God Hates Fags." Notwithstanding laws of sign placement, they can't be forced to take down signs with those messages, either. In business, the business owner has invested his time and money to buying space and supplies to create items to sell, and those things belong to him. I read the paragraph you wrote to argue that it isn't a right, but I didn't see you give a reason why or how it isn't a right. His business, his time, his supplies, his rights. Laws aside, how is it not his right to determine who he will or win't do business with? Isn't a forced transaction considered slavery at least on some level?
I simply don't believe that laws are what holds society together at the post-civil rights movement level of operation. Society has the laws for the most part because society has progressed. The laws came after the progress, the progress didn't come after the laws. If laws were what changed society, we would have been drug free decades ago, amirite?
I'm okay with a business owner refusing, for whatever reason, and getting the treatment he deserves from the public. Currently the Yelp page has been under attack. The same thing happened with that car dealership who treated that one pizza delivery guy like shit, remember? And they didn't have a religious reason, they just felt like being assholes, they had no law to say they couldn't be, but the recourse against inhumane treatment was that they were severely punished by society who saw their true character in the sunlight. Boycotts do work. And as I've said before, I don't think any person should be required to give a religious reason. The car dealership didn't. I like the way that whole story unfolded. Asshole+exposure=asshole suffers consequences. No law, no government.
I remember that most of society was against interracial marriage at one time. I say most because I know it wasn't all, but those who were okay with interracial marriage were a minority. And again, society has made progress. There was no law passed that required a certain number of interracial marriages per year. Even laws that forced people to perform weddings for interracial couples could not prevent retaliation in the form of shunning and other crimes to which there would be no witnesses in a packed room, etc. What changed was society first, then the laws. To answer your serious question, yes. I think it's okay for them to use their religion as an excuse, because as I've already said, I think they shouldn't be required to give an excuse. What I mean is, they can give any reason or no reason. It's their business. Their flour, their eggs, their sugar, I've already said this. It's a poor excuse and it will not fly by the standards of our progressive society. I'm not validating the excuse; I'm validating the right for a business owner to give any excuse. With anti-discrimination laws, now all they have to do is give any excuse except sexual orientation of the customer. The law makes them hide. Removing the law allows them to be stupid in public, which is good because we will know who they are and avoid them.
I respectfully disagree about the Rand Paul thing. I think he was making a statement of principle. He wasn't trying to repeal the Civil Rights Act. He was simply saying it wasn't necessary and it violated property rights. He was arguing the same points that I am now: society has progressed, but we still are being forced to wear training wheels. That's how I took it. And if he believes any differently, if he wants to open a restaurant and refuse service to blacks, then I'll promptly distance myself from his opinion on the matter. Principles are often more important than efficacy when you ask a libertarian, and for the most part I agree.
You did well. Another round is welcome.