Consider the reality of racial oppression in the US. Consider the role of liberal government - bound to defend equal rights and liberties before the law. Penny drop?
No. Because what you reject are very important liberal equal rights and liberties, namely self-ownership and freedom of contract.
Your theory involves testable, falsifiable, empirical assumptions as well as predictions - either that, or it does not apply to the real world.
Explain how moral theories - which distinguish what is good and what is bad - and theories of law - which do the same thing for laws - make testable empirical predictions. Testable empirical predictions, not "if you follow this moral theory, after death you will end up in paradise". If you cannot do this, explain why you think that moral prescriptions - like "this behavior is bad" - do not apply to the real world. They obviously apply, given that they lead to moral punishments of people who show such behavior.
Note, we are talking yet about the theories themselves. Not about an utilitarian justification of such theories, which contain such predictions, of type "with liberal law, the society will be more peaceful and more prosperous in the long run", which would be, without doubt, testable.
They are exactly the same as what you claim are inviolable for white racists.
No. Your black man has some right to stay in the motel against the wish of the motel owner. According to me, no white man has such a right. He may be refused to stay in the motel, because he is gay, looks strange, smells badly, is a catolic, or a jew, has red hair, or has looked in an inappropriate way at the daughter of the motel owner. The motel owner is not even obliged to tell him why.
All I concede is that your version can be given a form where it does not violate the "equal rights" itself. But even this is difficult, if, for example, the law prescribes quota, or even if statistics can be used to prove a violation of your laws.
What about the concept of black people being excluded from such contracts is confusing to you? It's right there in plain English, and the example of the US is ready to hand.
Black people were, and would be again, frequently prevented from making many such contracts with anyone, regardless of their volition or agreement. Physically prevented, by voluntary cooperation among white racists. You saw the example of the truck driving job.
The point is that freedom of contract is not a right to get some contracts. It is, first of all, a right to reject contracts. The own volition is not sufficient to get a contract, as well as the own sexual wish does not give you a right to have sex. So, once there is volitional decision of black haters not to make contracts with blacks, the blacks will not have contracts with these black haters. If the iceaura haters of the world decide not to sign contracts with iceaura, iceaura will be unable to sign contracts - with iceaura haters. Their freedom of contract is not even endangered, the blacks can have contracts with all the people of the world which are not black haters, and iceaura can have contracts with all people of the world which are not iceaura haters - if they make them sufficiently attractive offers, of course, to get their volitional agreement.
And that freedom of contract is defined, and limited, by all manner of restrictions regarding the definition of "ownership", the nature of an enforceable contract, etc.
That freedom of contract is, in the real world, heavily restricted, is correct. That's a characteristic property of modern corporatism, of economic fascism. Your use of scare quotes around "ownership" is, in the actual situation, quite justified, because not much of liberal ownership concepts remains in a modern regulated society. But it is irrelevant for liberal theory, which is a theory how law should be, not how law actually is.
The sum of such private decisions denied black people freedom of contract, freedom of travel, and so forth. In fact. In the US. That created inequality of civil rights and liberties under the law. In fact.
No. There can be no denial of freedom of contract because somebody refuses to sign a contract with you, simply because freedom of contract does not give you anything if the other side refuses to sign a contract with you. By the very definition of this right. Once there is nothing the right gives you in that situation, this right cannot be denied. There is nothing to be denied.
Freedom of travel we have discussed, and there was agreement that it exists, in the form of the right to travel to own property, and to leave it to travel to the outside world. But there was no agreement that, in this specified form, it would be really denied. Even your past examples, the "sundown towns", do not fit, because they allow travel even through these towns during daylight.
For a triviality, you're having a remarkably hard time wrapping your head around the basic situation. Take the obvious, simple, everyday one once again: Voluntary white racist communities, if allowed in the US, deny black people all kinds of civil liberties and freedoms enjoyed by white people and supposedly defended by liberal government, such as freedom of contract and freedom of travel. A US government cannot allow them, and defend civil liberties, both. If you allow the one, you deny the other.
No. Black people are allowed, in this case, to have their own black racist gated communities. They should be allowed, necessarily, because of equality before law, once white racist gated communities are allowed.
Now, in the black racist communities, whites are denied all what you name (but are not) "civil liberties and freedoms enjoyed" by the black people living there. They are even denied the right to enter them. Because this is property of the community, in this case of a black racist one. So that a liberal government is only supposed to defend the property rights of the black racists, and, that means, to prevent whites from entering it, once they have no permission of the owner to enter it.
A simply connected gated community, with a right of the public to go around its border, without enclaves containing property of non-members, does not endanger freedom of travel, as far as it exists in liberal theory, of non-members, even if it completely forbids to travel through the territory.
So, yes, I deny the existence of "rights and liberties" you claim to exist. Like the "right" to use some motel without the agreement of the owner of the motel. Your "right" to use it does not exist in liberal theory, even if the owner grants permission to use it to everybody except you. And therefore I deny that a liberal government is supposed to defend these non-existent rights.
So, indeed, the US government cannot be liberal and defend "civil liberties" as you define them. This is not a problem for my theory, because in my theory these "civil liberties" have never been civil liberties, and my version of liberal theory clearly prescribes a liberal government only to defend the rights and liberties of my version of liberal theory. If the resulting society violates "rights and liberties" as defined by American liberalism, this is not a problem of my version of liberal theory. It is only a conflict between two different theories.
BTW, I miss yet an answer to the following questions:
Do you think that it is part of civil liberties to visit Holy Places of other religions to urinate and masturbate, and therefore this civil liberty should be, of course, allowed and protected by the government?
If not, what makes the principal, conceptual difference between the liberty to urinate and masturbate in the Holy place of another religion, and the liberty for a black to use a bar or a motel of a white racist?