I am glad to see this discussion is directly dealing with Rand Paul's comments to NPR and later advanced with Maddow, as reading the topic and then the poll, my mind immediately lept to that exchange, without even having read your OP.
Believe it or not, I have some strong criticisms of Rand Paul, particularly with the specific statements ended his filibusters, and far more so, even extreme criticism, with regard to his father, but not in this regard.
The FACT of the matter, and the FACT of the Constitution itself, even with the 14th Amendment's addition, it is nowhere the legitimate authority of either the federal or the state government to dictate the terms of society, and in fact the
14th Amendment's insertion of the federal government into policing rights in the several states, is gross violation of the Constitution and the very definition of Rights themselves.
In point of fact, by the terms of the Constitution, the federal government has
ZERO Constitutional authority to legislate statutory law applying to the territory of the States, with the constitutional provision of legislative authority being limited to 1) the 10x10 mile area we know today as the District of Columbia, 2) lands specifically designated as federal lands, 3) Forts, arsenals, and military bases, and 4) territories that are prospective future states, and nothing else!
This makes the entirety of federal laws that are over and above, and supreme to, state laws, imposing more severe statutory penalties, particularly "hate crime legislation", and other federal dictates imposed through environmental law, --- ENTIRELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION OF AUTHORITY.
"Rights" are specifically recognized in this country to prohibit the federal government from any ability to deny or alter those rights, and this fact would prohibit the federal government from any sort of legitimate authority in the policing of those rights, even with the unconstitutional provision in the 14th Amendment to do so.
The federal government can no more put itself in charge of policing rights via Amendment, than it can deny those rights, such as the 2nd Amendment, by other amendments, as to do so grossly violates the single most foundational principle of the Constitution, and this country itself.
The idea that "rights" might be used as some sort of
"on-demand license" to use against private citizens, and private organizations, to compel them to provide any individual's or class of citizens expectations, is a thorough corruption of 'rights" itself, involving the transgression of those individuals and classes of citizens upon the very rights of those private individuals and organizations, in no way allowing them to compel those into service of their desires.
Like it or not, "rights" are a guaranteed individual freedom to each and every individual, provided it is within the sphere of their own personal authority, and does not transgress upon other individual's own rights.
These "public accommodations" are nowhere within the rights of those individuals to expect, nor the federal government's legitimate authority to police and compel, no matter how much either party might complain or demand.