I literally have to scroll up and back down in order to read the part I'm replying to, so I hope I don't miss anything.

There would still be segregation in parts of this country. There would still be restaurants that only served white people. Without government intervention, very little would be different today.

Are you serious? Corporate America has made working white men so scared to even use the word "black" without falling all over themselves to explain that they were talking about the color, not the race. White people have apologized when none was necessary, because of the fear of misinterpretation of their intentions or character. Not because of laws, because in many cases it was simply a matter of free speech. Rather, they recognized that society embraces yesterday's minority and is trying so hard to make up for the abuse that came from our ancestors. The laws may have nudged those who were mildly bigoted. But once we reached a tipping point, the laws were no longer needed and only serve the purpose of pandering to minorities who would otherwise fend for themselves and create opportunity for people to sue someone for looking at them sideways in a job interview.

Tell me, if there were people in office with authority to create the laws, who elected them? Do you suppose that bigots would elect someone who would legislate more things on behalf of the minorities they hated? No. Rather, the people reached a tipping point of acceptance and even if a huge portion of them were still bigots, we've grown away from that. FFS, we elected a black president by a landslide! We get a chance to show how close-minded we are when we all elected him not once but twice. His first campaign was "not Bush" so I can see discounting that, but his re-election gave opportunity to elect another white man with similar policies, and we instead chose the black man. There was no law saying he could sue us for discrimination, and we chose him. Yes, society is way better now than several decades ago. Removing anti-discrimination laws wouldn't change much.

The right to not serve you for any reason is inalienable because (a) I'm not a slave, and (b) the things I own that I am selling belong to me. In legal terms, yes, there exist laws that would force me to sell something or face penalties if my reasons for not wanting to sell it are based on gender, sexual preference, race, religion, etc. But take the question "can I force someone to sell something or do something for a gay couple" and remove the words in italics. Can you force someone to sell their property? Why? It's theirs. Can you force someone to work for someone else? Why? That's slavery. They may have shitty reasons. But sometimes I buy myself ice cream because I just feel like it, and sometimes I don't go to work because I don't feel like it. Sometimes mothers feed their children McDonald's and sometimes they cook six-course meals that include all of the right portions of all of the food groups. We can't intervene with their decision making processes in life because we don't like their decisions. UNLESS they affect our own rights. And since I do not have a right to own a slave, or to force another person to labor on my behalf, my rights aren't violated when someone refuses to bake me a cake. I'm mad, and I'm hurt. But there's nothing that says I have a right to not be hurt.

There is a right to religion in the first amendment. As I've said, the fact that someone needs to use religion as an excuse is shitty, but it's there. Also in the first amendment, freedom of speech to tell the public that this jackhole refused to serve you because you're gay. Also in the first amendment, freedom of the press to publicize your story and distribute it to the masses. Also in the first amendment, freedom to peaceably assemble to protest the baker's decision and to let him know of your grievances.

Thing is, they're not imposing their beliefs on others. They're withholding their ability to bake cake. The others (the gay couple) are imposing their beliefs that you can force someone to do something that they don't want to do, by not finding a better baker. When these stories hit the media, you've dismissed the other story that I've cited saying "that doesn't always happen" but if that is true, it is because the offended didn't take action. Remember that the couple who were turned away from the bakery were embraced by the media and that a famous baker from some TV show volunteered to make them a much better cake for free. People were outraged. If they weren't outraged, why did they leave all of those comments here on reddit and in the links to the stories?

I don't know what to tell you about Rand Paul. Maybe I'm injecting my own morals into my interpretation of his words on that story. I dunno. I am talking about property rights. I believe that if the laws worked 100% to eliminate all visible effects of racism, they'd still be immoral laws because they compel men to do things that they don't want to do and sell things to people that they don't want to sell them to. It doesn't mean I think gays or blacks or Muslims or whoever else are non-person. It's just that my life in past present and future is mine, as roughly described in [this weird video with quasi-creepy music.](GOTTA PUT A LINK TO THE VIDEO HERE WHEN THE INTERNET IS BACK UP)

I'm really curious what you think of me based on my belief that I or any store owner should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any or no reason. In particular because I'm very emphatically repeating that I would not refuse service to anyone due to their sexual preference. I'm a religious person, but my own interpretation of my religious material from scriptures to manuals and sermons would not lead me to believe that suppressing someone is okay. I mean I sort of see how a person would not want to be involved--just like I as a Mormon don't want to buy alcohol for someone, even if I myself am not drinking it. But I know it's gotta feel pretty rotten to be turned away because someone feels so strongly against what I'm asking him to passively participate in. I get that. To me, it doesn't feel like cognitive dissonance. I absolutely love my best friend, who is gay, and one of my exes, who is gay. I don't meddle in their affairs for things to disagree on in order to give a stamp of approval or rejection of friendship. I love them for who they are, I'd never turn them away, but yet I still believe that a store owner should have the right to be as stupid as he wants if it is his time and his supplies that he doesn't want to sell.

Now, having said all that, when I speak of Rand Paul or the idea of repealing the Civil Rights Act: It's not a priority. Property rights are important, and so long as these laws are the absolute threshold of how far the government will meddle in private affairs, I'm somewhat content to just leave it be, since so many other laws complicate outcomes of societal behavior and lawsuits. If I had nothing better to do, I might entertain the idea of putting a sunset on these laws and revisiting whether we need them on the books or not every so many years. I am of the opinion that we don't right now. Yes, I know there will be people turned away by bigots. But as that happens, those businesses will collapse, leaving a thriving economy for the more polite businesses to grow.