The entire debate boils down to which should take precedent the owner's right to property or the person who is denied service's right to dignity.
There are legitimate arguments for each side, even though it is widely accepted that one's right to dignity take precedent over another's right to use his property to serve only those whom they chooses to serve.
The clumsy way in which we resolve it has devolved into political correctness run amok. I would venture to say that our society should have grown up enough that it could resolved in some other way-- such as requiring an establishment post a sign outlining the types of people whom they will not serve, hire, etc.
People thus affected would then be free to take their business elsewhere.
Just as an example, when I lived in Japan, places seeking workers would often specify gender and age range. They would also specify native Japanese or invite foreigners to apply.
In some cases, it was quite offensive and the age/gender/nationality thing had no meaningful bearing on the job advertised. But it was also helpful as people using the advertisements could avoid wasting time skipping over the ads for which they didn't meet the specification.
Contrast the openly discriminatory Japanese system to the subtly discriminatory American system-- few of our corresponding "Help Wanted" ads are clear, although you can get some clues with key phrases such as "great part-time job for a housewife" or "women and minorities strongly encouraged to apply." You know darn well that if you are, say, a 50 something non minority male, you would be wasting your time applying for such jobs. But there are many more who do not use these code phrases and would simply find some other excuse not to hire the age/gender/color which they are NOT targeting. How much better it would be if they simply had the freedom which the Japanese enjoy to specify it outright!
“The entire debate boils down to which should take precedent the owner’s right to property or the person who is denied service’s right to dignity.”
Larry Auster makes the case that non-discrimination law could be applied to public accommodations without creating the vast intrusion into the private sphere that the rest of the 1964 Civil Rights creates:
“He doesn’t even touch the specific issue of Title VII, which outlawed discrimination in private employment, and which was the part of the law Paul said he thought was unconstitutional. Unfortunately Paul messed up the Title VII issue by defending discrimination in a restaurant. A restaurant is a public accommodation. If, as he says he does, he supports the part of the law outlawing discrimination in public accommodations, then restaurants are a part of that. Discrimination in private employment is distinct from discrimination in public accommodations, from governmental discrimination, and from Jim Crow laws which require discrimination against blacks. The writer doesn’t present any constitutional justification for the federal government’s intrusion into the private decisions by employers as to whom they hire. In my view, outlawing Jim Crow and outlawing the exclusion of blacks from public accommodations were both arguably justified under the original 14th amendment, the purpose of which was to assure the fundamental rights of the freed blacks without which they could not carry on the normal activities of life. By contrast, there is no constitutional justification for Title VII—it is a revolutionary, lawless expansion of federal power. It is the fountainhead of the anti-discrimination tyranny under which we now live.”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016540.html