It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
Presumptuous, I'll give you that, dishonest, but presumptuous...
Freedom is not for the business owner exclusively, that is completely asinine. Other citizens have the same freedom of association as business owners.
I did answer the question, don't have to answer it again. It was easy so it confuses me that you're having such difficulties.
I am personally fine with people discriminating against whoever they want as long as they don't use the government to enforce it or legislate laws or policies that exclude certain groups of public services. The way I see it, arbitrarily discriminating against a group generally incurs a cost in the market and therefore it is a competitive disadvantage and those who do not discriminate will generally do better in the market. If I learned anything from Chick Fil A and Duck Dynasty, it is that there is a market backlash when people try to force nondiscrimination views. I understand that a lot of people would rather not associate with me, and that is fine, because I really don't see much reason to associate with those who do not wish to associate with me.