"Telling "someone else what rules to make for the use of their private property" is exactly how a community organizes and protects itself. A person either wants community to a more or lesser extent or he doesn't want community at all. Most people freely choose to want community to some extent. And they decide, under a set of cultural and constitutional rules, to what extent." - whilom
Exactly the point on all these threads.
We constitutional libertarians are NOT telling you authoritarian types how to live your personal lives.
We simply want you to obey the "constitutional rules" you cited above so that we can live ours, as we choose.
You seem to have the odd idea that you can tar us as being the authoritarians here. No sale. You are.
We constitutional libertarians are NOT telling you authoritarian types how to live your personal lives. Many self-styled conservatives wouldn't go along with government planning of the usage of private property and the management of free association, with such planned outcomes either.
It is true, that the best government is small and best decisions are made locally. When this has been tried elsewhere by the Annointed do-gooder, it is always scaled back or abolished.
Only slow, tried and true modification should allow the growth of law and such should never be used for the growth of government.
The issue is whether a resturant is a public venue or conveyance. Can a member of the public choose another bus line or find another ball park right field to sit in? Hardly. Therefore some regulation of conduct of all has some precedent. But he dang sure can go to another restaurant, bar, or private business to trade.