I believe most "anti-discrimination" laws are essentially unconstitutional, in any application of them to anyone or any enterprise in the private sector.
It is the government (and any agency of it) that cannot "discriminate" because the government is the government of all the people. So, the government must be "blind" to any distinction based on race or anything else, in conducting government business; and the government must enforce all laws equally.
But, to "discriminate" essentially means to apply your set of values and/or chose how you want to apply your set of values as long as that is an affirmative act on your part, defending your freedom and your rights, as opposed to a negative act to, based on your values, deny some one else their rights.
But, you are not obligated to buy, sell or associate with anyone whom you chose not to buy, sell or associate with. I do not have the right to demand you sell me something, just because I want it, and to pretend that one class or another has such a right would imply that we have no rights at all; because if we have no right to live by the values our life, faith and belief sets for us, then "freedom of speech" and the like are meaningless.
I completely agree with you, but I think it's about 50 years too late. I wish that the entire Civil Rights movement had been economic, not by legislation. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was I thought, perfect. Make it COST you money to be a racist, but don't legislate it. I think if someone wanted to open a blacks-only motel, or gay-only, or no-Irish, or smoking allowed, or whatever, they should be legally able to so without the government harassing them.
This is not your grandfather's America. Now we see the pernicious effect of using the federal government to enforce attitude control, as embodied in what was misnamed a "civil rights act." As someone once said, it was 10% civil rights, and 90% federal control, which was the point all along.
No, you cannot do with your property as you please, if you open any part of it to the public, it ain't yours any more. (Although you still get the bills for maintaining it!)
I remember one time hearing of a little old lady who had a detached garage with an upstairs apartment. All self-contained, perfect for a single person. She, being a widow, then innocently advertised it for rent to a "single, Christian, older man with (iirc) handyman experience." She just wanted some old geezer who could use a hammer in case something broke. Very understandable.
And then came the letter, threatening a lawsuit on the grounds of housing discrimination, because she had specified "Christian" in the ad. (Actually, any of the specifications in the ad would have worked for this purpose.) Upon payment of some amount which I disremember, maybe close to but not exceeding $1000, and withdrawal of the ad, the correspondents would "promise" to drop the action. What to do? She paid up.
Turned out that these people supported themselves by trolling the ads for just such gems, knowing that their position was unassailable, and that if necessary, they COULD make good on the threat. The anti-discrimination fine would be enough to force the victim to sell out completely.
Since that time, the same thing has happened in other places, but, naturally, it's not important enough to rate a square inch of newsprint.
Land of the free, indeed.