For example, you point out that banana smoothies are not essential. How can I argue with that? I really doubt anyone in all of history has ever died from lack of a banana smoothie. The thing is, you're not suggesting that the makers of banana smoothies be the only one allowed to discriminate. The butcher, the baker, the greengrocer, the fishmonger too. Not only them but the dry cleaner, the shoe store, the gas station, the auto mechanic, hotels, and on and on. All of the things we consider essential to modern life. Sure, they're not the "basic needs of life" the way medical care is but life in modern times, as a practical matter, requires such things. Not knowing whether one could access such goods and services, particularly when one is travelling, would be incredibly disruptive and burdensome to people and the economy as a whole.
Even more disturbing to me is how you speak about the ability to discriminate, for any reason, as if it were a matter of liberty yet you're willing to restrict people's liberty on the most flimsy of basis. Public corps do receive benefits from the govt, but they also pay a price for them (ex double taxation and a greater amount of regulation). In addition, all businesses receive benefits from the govt. I can understand why you would want to limit public corps like that (after all, it would go a long way to ameliorating the disruption caused by arbitrary discrimination) but it lacks a rational basis grounded in our legal system.
finally, as far as the "We've come a long way, baby" argument, the fact that there's enough support for such discrimination to cause a state legislature to pass such a bill demonstrates that we still have a long way to go, and laws gauranteeing public access are still needed.