I agree with Stossel.
I am of the opinion that every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as he does not initiate aggression against others. I consider aggression to be the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.
I would argue that the public accommodations part of the law ought to be done away with, because it is precisely the sort of initiation of aggression I oppose, while the person who excludes someone from his property may be being a dick, but is not initiating aggression against anyone or their property.