It seems you are simply asserting the truth of your position, as though it is axiomatic that property rights trump all other rights.
Person A says, "I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property"
Person B says, "I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property or my right to be treated equally".
One is the basis of a stable social order, and one is not. Once you abandon the principle of private property and self-ownership, then human rights just become a popularity contest, about which values and attitudes are acceptable (not polygamy, but yes homosexuality! Not white racial awareness, but yes other groups' ethnic/racial awareness!).
It's not a viable principle to base a justice system on. It will inevitably lead to politics being turned into a venue through which groups fight to expand their power at the expense of others. This is hugely wasteful.
The evidence for your system isn't very good. Without government protections from discrimination, large portions of the population were oppressed, lynched, falsely imprisoned, denied jobs, education, rights, healthcare (and much more), and consigned to poverty.
An important question is, why would anyone desire to see others oppressed and abused, that they would defend the power to do it?
You're conflating violations of human rights, like lynching, with private discrimination, which violates no rights.
You do not have a right to a product or service (like healthcare), or a job, that someone else provides. You're only entitled to your life, liberty and property. As soon as you assume a right to things others produce, you support the violation of their life, liberty and/or property.
>An important question is, why would anyone desire to see others oppressed and abused, that they would defend the power to do it?
Private discrimination is not oppression. Using government violence to prevent someone from discriminating is oppression.
Private discrimination is something we all engage in, every day. What you're arguing for is prohibiting certain types of discrimination, in certain areas of private life. For instance, prohibiting racial discrimination but not ideological discrimination, and in one's business interactions, and not sexual interactions.
The whole concept of prohibiting private discrimination is wrong, as it presumes we do not have a total right to determine who we associate and do business with.
A group is going to revolt because racists don't want to associate with them? Seems unlikely.
I haven't seen evidence that private discrimination leads to revolution.
History is filled with examples of laws being passed to mandate segregation, and to discriminate against minorities, because the authorities were concerned about the fact that in the absence of such intervention, the majority demographic was mixing with a minority group through marriage and commerce.
