We are talking about RIGHTS not LAW. When you cite what the LAW is you are not addressing the argument. You essentially say that you have no argument, no logical rebuttal.
So again I ask. Did the blacks have no rights until the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted? Your arguments seem to be based around the concept that rights are defined by law. If indeed blacks actually had the right to vote prior to the CRA and the 15th amendment, then you cannot argue that we don't have the right to deny people to shop our privately held stores for whatever reason. The argument is that a right exists even if the law doesn't support or allow it. Counter the argument! If you can.You and a few others who 'think' like you are the ones who are wasting their time, shoveling sand against the overwhelming tide. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was approved by the U.S. Congress, signed by President Johnson and tested and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. You are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans on the left and right.
Anyone who, like you, doesn't like this law, can try to change it through the ballot box, and ultimately by amending the U.S. Constitution. I see very little chance of that ever happening. Only a small minority of Americans are opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so I choose to ignore them.
There you go shifting the goal post again. Jim Crow laws REQUIRED discrimination. No one had a choice to not discriminate under Jim Crow laws. CRA laws REQUIRE non-discrimination. No one has a choice to discriminate under CRA laws. We are advocating for the freedom to choose. I guess you are against such freedoms.You and those on your side lost this argument back in 1964. The USA will not be going back to Jim Crow laws, no matter how much those in your small minority scream and moan.