The Rivers of Blood speech was made in opposition to the Race Relations Act, an anti-discrimination law. Are you saying you support racial discrimination in housing and employment? Because outlawing that is what the Race Relations Act did.
In the US, the civil rights movement (in many respects a good thing) staged sit-ins at lunch counters. Black people would sit in an establishment that did not want them as customers.
Now, whose rights do we care about? The black people weren't starving. They had choices in where they got they're food. But the lunch counter owner had saved up his money, purchased a restaurant, and tried to set rules for the business that he owned. He didn't have a lot of choices. The lunch-counter was his only business. He had that, or he had nothing. But he was told he had no rights. His property wasn't really his property. Nope. He had to serve anyone that walked in through the door and he couldn't turn people away. He didn't have that right. His property wasn't so much his property, it was a "public accomodation".
I disagree with that. Property Rights were traded so that black people could sit at lunch counters. Did the black people gain so much? Or did we all lose a lot by losing control over our personal property?
Now, a smart businessman will serve anyone who comes in through the door. But the issue isn't "Is discimination a smart business practice?" It isn't. It's a dumb business practice. The question is how much control should the government have over your home or your business?
I vote for less government control.