If you write about it, it appears very speculative and in most cases is wrong. It is not without reason that you usually do not even try to support your personal attacks with quotes and links - this usually would be impossible. Which means that you have no idea about the meaning of freedom of contract, at least in its classical liberal variant. There may be some American liberal newspeak phrase "freedom of contract", which means something very different. Up to now, I have been unable to make sense of this phrase as you use it - your claim that you would use my notion is simply complete nonsense, trivially wrong. Once they are prevented from rejecting contracts on certain specific grounds, they are prevented from executing their own freedom of contract, which includes the right to reject any contract without even giving a reason, and, if they chose to give a reason, the right to reject any contract for any imaginable reason. Of course, rejecting a contract for racial reasons is simply a particular case of rejecting for personal whim. So your claim is in contradiction even with elementary logic. Or yet another example of American liberal newspeak. If you want to repeat meaningless (because unsupported) claims, go to some church. You can repeat this claim even fifteen thousand times, it does not become more true from repetition. Why should I make such meaningless contentions? I have not made any claims about motels in the Confederacy, nor before nor after 1964. People in totalitarian states do what the law prescribes, because they have to, and this proves nothing about liberal government. There was no black revolt against slavery, and there is no white revolt against modern slavery (at least if you do not count electing Trump as a revolt). That they violate elementary property rights, which clearly include the right to deny entry to every person for whatever reason (including morally reprehensible racist reasons) as well as the right to refuse to make contracts to every person for whatever reason (including morally reprehensible racist reasons) is obvious and trivial. You don't even understand that my claim was not about American reality. It is about a hypothetical situation, namely about "allowing white racial discrimination in commercial dealings", and that this would lead to some consequences in a liberal government. This cannot be falsified by any facts about US reality, given that US reality never was liberal. Before it was full of racist laws and regulations, now it is also full of anti-liberal elements, now more anti-white than the traditional anti-black. But is was never really liberal. It was at best American liberal, whatever this means. But freedom of contract and private ownership do not lead to such conflicts. Only in your fantasy, they lead to a conflict with some unspecified list of "basic civil rights and liberties", which has nothing to do with classical liberal rights and liberties.