When the government is taking the risk of being a business owner instead of me, when the government makes my payroll, and when the government pays my overhead then, and only then should they tell me who I can hire, serve, and what kinds of signs I can put up. Until then, it's none of the governments business.
Quote from PatternRec:
I think what is being missed is the difference between implicit and explicit discrimination. Explicit discrimination is against the law and rightfully so. Implicit isn't and shouldn't ever be.
Putting a sign out front that says "No blacks" is an example of explicit discrimination.
Starting a hair salon with pictures of white women with different hair styles is an example of implicit discrimination. While a Black woman can walk in there, it would be pointless as the establishment is not equipt to deal with a Black woman's hair. That they had pictures of White women outside should be clue enough for a Black woman to not seek service there. Should the government force that business to properly cater to everyone? Or should the market do that?
This is something you don't want the government to regulate. The government's role is to protect its citizens. Not to dictate what kind of business they can run and who they must cater to. Public safety laws notwithstanding.
I disagree with Rand Paul's desire to remove government from protecting its citizens against explicit discrimination. But there has been increasing encroachment into private enterprise's right to implicit discrimination through activist litigation.