The argument still fails.
Oh really? And which argument is that? Let's be specific, and thus, meaningful, shall we? The argument that in the racist customers scenario we find the exact same behavior as in the racist Woolworths scenario? Because that was, obviously, the main argument made in that paragraph. Why, I even bolded it. Do you contest that argument?
Let's say the government passes two laws. One says vendors can't say why they are refusing to serve black customers, but they are free to arbitrarily refuse anybody. The other says customers can't picket businesses and cannot say why they are not buying something [if it's for racist reasons]. What now?
Well, yeah! What now? Now the same identical behavior by customers and businessmen is treated the same identical way. So why is it that no one on planet earth would support such a law limiting customers in this way? I think it's because of an anti-business bias and a ridiculously over-inflated view of the power of businesses. Do you disagree?
BTW, I am thrilled to see Jacob Hornberger wrote an article making this exact same point, and am very proud that I could independently come up with the same thought as him.
Look at it another way. Say if we were talking about voting instead of businesses. Do you think that people should be compelled to vote just because the government shouldn't be allowed, without cause for something other than race, deny them the right to vote? Using your analogy, the government should be compelling people not only to vote, but to vote for candidates outside their race.
There we go! Exactly! It's the same principle, isn't it? There should be a quota/affirmative action program begun to make sure that every voter supports a "fair" proportion of minority candidates. If it's evil and horrid to hire too many whites, surely it's even more evil and horrid to support too many whites for elective office. We must stomp out this sin of discrimination everywhere we can, by any means necessary.
Next up: mandatory miscegenation.
That's because you are ignorant of how the hospital system works.
I am ignorant of many things. Though you have no basis for knowing whether I am ignorant or not on this subject, as it happens I am in fact ignorant of the details of running a hospital, at least more so than you seem to be claiming to be. So you have guessed rightly. Of course, when one knows a great deal on an esoteric topic, it is usually a safe guess that any person picked at random will be quite ignorant about it compared to oneself. Whether this makes it a sensible practice to go around calling everyone ignorant is another matter. A matter for the courts to decide, I suppose. Everything else is.
You can't just go out and build a hospital. You have to first have a certificate of need from the government. If you even try to even expand your hospital, if you don't have a certificate of need the state regulators can shut you down. I know this because I personally knew a hospital administrator that this happened too!
Now you might say "Well the state shouldn't be able to do that." But they can. That's "states rights" at work.
I have a dream, that by focusing on one topic at a time, without bringing in other bizarrely irrelevant side issues, internet forum posters will be able to think more clearly about the topic at hand.
Last point. There are ways to argue your position. You just haven't stumbled on them yet.
Apparently, the correct way involves hospitals. Perhaps the Panic of 1819 and mandatory pet licensing could also be brought in to make things clear.
I'm still waiting for my geometry-style proof of why the state is justified in crushing vendor-racism, but not in crushing buyer-racism, if that is your position. If not, perhaps you could explain your position. Or, you could explain to me more about hospitals.
The fact that this is exactly what furface was saying earlier in this thread ( http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2705598#post2705598 ) made it more on my mind, of course.
) Let's say the hospital director said "We'll only work on your son if you sign this contract promising to let klansmen eat at your restaurant"? Do you think I'd sign it? Hell yeah I'd sign it! I might sue later to get out of the contract because of duress. Then again if this meant I could always go to this hospital (and there was no other hospital around that served blacks) I'd consider that a fair trade. So just from a rational economic sense it's stupid to forgo the right to badly needed services just to avoid serving someone else that you don't like, especially if you're going to get paid to offer the service. Prior to desegregation black people served racist white people all the time in various capacities. 
