[BroJoeK]

Ohioan: "While I do not want to touch off one of these divisive debates, which divert attention away the more immediate issues..."

So you begin your post with a total lie (note your addressee list) and yet you expect anyone to believe the rest of it?

Why?

Ohioan: "The idea that Government should have the right to forbid citizens, able to afford to hire others with their own funds, from exercising their preferences for their kith & kin, or people who share their theological views or a common history, is not validated in respect to our cultural insights by politicians' climbing on bandwagons. "

Sure, that was the argument by opponents of the 1965 Civil Rights Act at the time, including, as listed by Pelham above: Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan & WF Buckley.
But most, including Buckley, later came to regret their opposition to such 1960s era laws.
So, it turns out that the only long-term opposition came from erstwhile Southern Democrats who now form some of the Republican political base.

[DiogenesLamp]

But most, including Buckley, later came to regret their opposition to such 1960s era laws.

The media has that effect on people. You brow beat people long enough, and you can convince people like George HW Bush to break his promise and raise taxes.

You can convince John McCain that Sarah Palin cost him the election.

You can convince much of the public that Trump pointing out Baltimore is a rat infested sh*thole is "racist."

The media have too much power in this nation, and that power badly needs to be broken.

[Ohioan]

Your effort to reduce debate over the proper role of the Federal Government into a question of who thinks "what" at a particular time is noted.

Again, here is what I suggest is far, far more relevant:

"Civil Rights" vs. Civil Liberties.