If you don't have an answer, are you going to retract this claim?
On the other hand, one's personal views or lifestyle shouldn't decide if you do or do not do business with them.
Why would I? I don't have an answer, just thoughts on possible answers.
Well, because that is the comment I was responding to when you said you didn't have an answer...
The Montgomery Bus company was a private company. Oh and a monopoly. And backed by the state's segregation law. So the black community couldn't just use another bus company nor start their own.
Bolded the important part for you. The discriminatory rules came from the state, not from a private company, making this example irrelevant.
Your entire argument seems to stem from the idea that they can just "go somewhere else". And right now, that's possible BECAUSE of anti-discrimination laws. Banks can't discriminate on who they loan to. Renters can't discriminate on who they rent to. Supply stores can't discriminate on who they sell their supplies to. The things you need to start a business are no longer discriminated.
No, that's not what makes it possible. What makes it possible is that not every business is run by the KKK.
Do you really think that repealing anti-discrimination laws would immediately cause all banks to refuse service to black people? It sounds like you have a very low opinion of your fellow man.
Further more, what of the rights of the consumer? Do they NOT have the right to purchase the best product at the lowest price?
They have the right to purchase the best product at the lowest price
that someone will offer it to them for. They do not have the right to force someone to engage in a transaction unwillingly.
Taking your train of thought to its logical conclusion, increasing the price of a product should be illegal, because then you are taking away the right of the consumer to buy it at its old price. That's not how commerce works.
You claim that forcing businesses to accept any customer that can pay, you violate their rights but by allowing them to go against the free market principals, you violate the consumer's right to get the best deal for whatever commodity they are seeking to purchase.
I don't think you understand what the free market is. You are not advocating a free market, you are advocating government interference in the market by way of anti-discrimination laws. Whether or not those laws are justified, they cannot be dressed up as "free market".
Finally, racism will always exist as long as we show it's still valid. Allowing segregation and discrimination tells the country "It's ok to be racist". Not only that but you end up in your own little bubble of life, being able to only interact with people who agree with you, not being exposed to other points of view or seeing how your preconceived notions that you got from your family might be wrong. It's why cities are largely liberal in their thinking vs the more rural areas: Because cities have such a vast amount of diversity and people forced to deal with such diversity that the concept of traditionalism or tribalism is hard to gain traction. The bubble is just too vast and too encompassing.
You have everything here the wrong way around. Racism will always exist, end of story.
The Roman Catholic church already tried the approach of disallowing viewpoints that conflicted with how they thought society should work. If it had succeeded, we wouldn't be having this debate because rapid communication between opposite sides of the world would be impossible.
What you are proposing, preventing racists from expressing themselves openly, is a great way to force them
into their own little bubble. If you know that you will be arrested or fined for being seen as racist, then you will only express those opinions inside your group of like-minded friends. The way to break down those bubbles is to make racist speech and discrimination legal, not force racist opinions into hiding.