Uh, no. Mr. Economics.
Bars make money like anyone else, they have more money coming in than going out.
Your contention...
... that they may charge for entering or membership shows this. The bottom line is that the owner can choose who and who not can enter and/or remain inside his bar, or on his private property.
And I would definitely NOT use the words "public contributions." Voluntary exchanges of money for services and/or products would be a MUCH better description.
You still haven't addressed the distinction; explain how a house is not open to the public the same way a bar isn't open to the public. Explain the actual differences in detail and not in generalities. You'll have to explain why a bar operating with a state license, taking in money from the public, carries all the same rights as a private domicile that does not offer any sort of service to the public nor rely on the public to run their house. You made a bad analogy and need to move on, because you're merely dancing around the fact that a bar is open to the public and therefore carries different responsibilities than a home that by definition is not open to the public unless a business is being operating within its boundaries.
Straw man alert!
I NEVER said people have the right to do whatever they want on their own private property.
I never said you did. Read the whole paragraph.
So, let's not put words in my mouth, ok?
Regardless, let's compare, since you brought it up. Because there is a huge and very relevant difference here. Murder is an infringement on someone's rights, their right to their life. Perhaps the most basic yet most important natural right. Yet, there is no right to be on another's private property. And thus denying someone the privilege of being on your property is not a denial of anyone's rights.
Then how does this not open the door to separate but equal in Plessy and therefore racial discrimination? In your interpretation, someone doesn't have "a right" to be on someone else's property and therefore doesn't carry any rights...except the right not to be murdered because that
right to life over-rides someone's private property rights, correct? But if you believe this, you also believe that someone must not be able to racially discriminate against someone else on the discriminator's private property because that
right to equality over-rides that property owner's right to racially discriminate against them. If you agree with my previous two sentences in this paragraph, then your original statement that "A bar is private property, and the owner should be able to choose who is and isn't allowed on his property" has at least one qualifier when it comes to, for example, discriminating based on race, which you must see if quite different than discriminating based on looks or clothing.
You also seem to be confused with the difference between private businesses and private homes; both function entirely differently as their purpose and relationship with the state are subject to different laws. Private businesses fall under the Commerce Clause, private homes do not. This logical expansion of what the Commerce clause allows make perfect sense and is backed by precedent that we can go over.
Yes, I have acknowledged this previously, and stated I was not referring to the law as it is, but to my personal point of view regarding property rights.
Well, except that your POV does not offer any practical solutions as it ignores centuries-old laws. In this case, a state license to distribute alcohol. Why not address the law and actually argue the specifics of why, you believe, a bar operates no differently than a home and therefore should have the same rights? Because that statement is so far-reaching and general, with no legal precedent or legal theory to back it up, that it becomes a mostly useless statement.
Because in order to make "separate but legal" law, and enforce it, government must acknowledge the color of one's skin. So, no my sentiment above would not condone nor support this.
You merely repeated what you said before. How can you reconcile your statement of "A bar is private property, and the owner should be able to choose who is and isn't allowed on his property" and not come to the conclusion that this would allow people to racially discriminate? Perhaps you simply spoke too generally. But that's why you should always be careful with the words you use.
No, it's not. Sorry, but it's much worse than that. There are still ignorant and hateful people all over, and no law can change that. Next to murder, slavery is probably the worst infringement of one's natural rights. Your body is your property, you have to right to your own life, and to the fruits of your own labor.
Then you agree that we should curtail property owner's private property by restricting their ability to murder and racially discriminate, correct?