It's obvious we disagree right from this premise.
I'm not going to argue whether morals are subjective or objective, but I will note that is a debate that philosophers have made and continue to have. It's not something that can be dismissed out of hand one way or the other. And, it's actually kind of interesting.
I'm not dismissing it out of hand. My opinion is that they are subjective, and I've never heard a reasonable argument otherwise.
What I do have a problem with is the idea the State supersedes the individual. The ONLY difference between State Institutions and Private Institutions is the State has the legal right to initiate force against the Citizenry. That's it. That is the only difference.
As usual, yours is an absurdly and incorrectly reductionist viewpoint. First, there are many differences in power between the state and the individual. Hell, there are many differences in power between states and the federal government. States can't form treaties with other nations, for example. Secondly, private individuals as well as institutions have the right to initiate force. If you are under threat of physical violence, you can physically remove the threat. And what about private security firms? Hell, what about bouncers? Ever been thrown out of a club or bar?
This is so much ranting from another "revolutionary" without an education.
You said if the business doesn't meet 'societal standards'. OK, think about that for a minute. If a business doesn't meet the standards of society - how the hell are they in business? That's the whole point in free-trade. You offer a product and it's up to the market to determine whether it's valued above other products that can be purchased. If it is, then you must by default meet societal standards. WHY on earth would you ever need or want to bring the government in to determine what the free-market is already determining? It doesn't make any sense at all. Also, our society is diverse and so not all products will be desired by all people. Pork for example, is NOT desired by a minority of people. Meat is not desired. Apple computers is a minority product. So, who is to say what does and does not meet the standards of society? It CAN ONLY be discovered in a free trade. There literally is no other way to know for sure.
Aside from yet another overly-simplistic viewpoint, you're completely missing the point. Laws that enforce said standards provide protection for the public. Suppose restaurants didn't have to abide by health code standards. Okay, so people start getting sick, and they start to lose business. There's no guarantee that they go
out of business, as there will probably be plenty of people who think "You know, I really love that place, and
I've never been sick..." and continue to patronize the establishment. Or there will be newcomers to the town or city who don't know anything about the place's history, or people who don't watch the news. Without some mechanism to
guarantee that once a problem is noted, said establishment is unable to operate at least until the problem is fixed, the public will have little protection against it.
To simply assume that bad businesses simply go out of business is to ignore reality. Consider the Draconian DRM used by many of the giants in the gaming industry. Customers
absolutely loathe it, but they really don't have any alternative. Because of the semi-cooperative effort within the industry to employ these tactics, gamers don't really have anywhere else to go.
Suppose your business offers a product that's: strawberry scented anal floss. IS your business meeting societal standards? Do you need a governmental employee to form an action committee to determine if you are meeting 'societies standards'? No, you don't. Not only is that very uneconomical, we actually have this other nifty mechanism for determining if your product is of value - it's called voluntary trade. You will go out of business if you're not valued and you will expand your business if you are valued.
Straw man. We're talking about protecting the public from injury, illness, and oppression. Of course, there
are regulations regarding the kind of stuff you can put in that anal floss, thankfully.
Why on Earth would you desire to have the State "put the smackdown" on a person who offers a product? The State does so through the DIRECT INITIATION of force against to so-called "free" Citizen. That is a horrible way to run a so-called 'free' society. AND we have another way. The free-market will "put the smackdown" on a product of insufficient value through the INDIRECT VOLUNTARY refusal of trade.
As has been explained to you, the free-market won't necessarily do that. Also explained to you is that it isn't about letting the free market decide such things. There's every chance a market that discriminates against blacks will survive and perhaps even thrive. We have decided as a society that we're not going to allow that.
You are so paranoid of this concept of force, but I can't understand it. Wouldn't you want force applied to someone who was attacking you, or trying to kill you or your family? Don't you want the courts levvying restraining orders against stalkers, and the poilce enforcing them?
Why are you choosing to use force when you needn't?
Because we
do need to in order to eliminate it entirely. We have decided that these kinds of operations are prohibited. It's about ideals, which you must understand since you're basically proselytizing your own here and now. This ideal happens to differ from yours, that's all. Also, this ideal is based on real-world experience, rather than naivete.
Maybe we just can't come to an agreement on this issue. The use of force against a free citizen cuts against the very fabric of voluntary free-markets which is what differentiates use from other authoritarian societies. Not only is it immoral, its economically unsound and from MPOV goes against our very nature.
It's not immoral. Not enforcing such mandates would immoral, because we'd be allowing the oppression of individuals based on criteria that we, as a society, have deemed to be protected from such discrimination.