everything everyone says is constitutionally protected.
So, this whole speech thing turned into a distraction. Is discrimination against protected groups speech? Is it protected speech? If not, then we don't have to argue about the 1st amendment anymore.
Regarding discrimination: a more libertarian mindset argues that allowing people to "vote with their dollar" is a more effective way of punishing undesirable business behavior than through legislation.
So here's the thing.
If that's true, that without anti-discrimination laws discrimination against protected groups wouldn't happen because people can vote with their wallet, then:
Why did it happen in the past?
How do they know it wouldn't happen more if anti-discrimination laws were repealed today? Do they have evidence?
If it's all just an argument about which would be more effective in reducing discimination, then why do they care is anti-discrimination laws exist? People can still vote with their wallets if it's also illegal for businesses to discriminate.