You're trying an ad hominem, in which you identify me with skinheads and the KKK on the grounds that I believe in free association. It won't work. Free association means I can associate with whom I please, and not associate with whom I please. If a black man wants to hire only blacks, or a Jew wants to hire only Jews, he's free to do so. If I don't want to hire Irishmen, that's my prerogative.
You should note, however, that before the civil rights laws were passed, blacks were entering the middle class, and their wages were rising, faster than they were after those laws were passed. Endorsing freedom of association does not imply a return to Jim Crow. For that matter, Jim Crow was not about private individuals exercising their preference: they were discriminatory laws.
Where does that leave the 14th Amendment?
It has exactly nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, which forbids discriminatory laws. The amendment doesn't state who I must choose as friends, club members or employees. In fact, affirmative action laws violate the 14th amendment, as do many other "anti-discrimination" laws.
I'm not trying to impose an ad hominem on you. Just trying to figure out if you're consistent on that point.
Looks like you are, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court has ruled that a business does not have a constitutional right to discriminate against blacks or Jews. Now with this case, it has done the same with gays.
Whether a single individual can discriminate is another question, of course, but we weren't dealing with a statute that governed only businesses that consisted of a single individual. Nor were we dealing with the question of who you can have in your club, or who you can be friends with.
We were dealing only with the question of whether a state can pass a special law designed to make it legal to discriminate against gays in employment practices and by landlords. The Supreme Court ruled that the state can't.
You can dislike that all you want, but that's clearly the law, and it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Court would rule as it did, given its prior decisions on discrimination.
Personally, I cannot see why Roberts should be considered "pro gay" because he defends that principle of law. And actually, he did not defend it. He merely played "Scalia" in a mock preparation for the argument.