It appears you did not understand the simple point that I was making. I'm not sure how I could have made it more clear, but I'll try to restate it again for you. I'll phrase it differently this time.
The "Jim Crow" laws required all businesses to have separate facilities for whites and non-whites, whether the businesses wanted this or not. I'm sure that a majority of the businesses in some locations were enthusiastic about this, but I doubt you could get it to 100% without the force of law. I'm pretty sure that some small businesses would rather just have one sales area and sell to anyone, rather than having multiple sales areas and the extra overhead. Also some small businesses must have been run by people who were not racist jerks.
Undoubtedly there businesses that didn't care about race existed at time... just as there were abolitionists during slavery.
Oh wait, you did understand my point. Maybe you thought I didn't understand it? I'm really not clear on what you are arguing.
These laws regulated what water fountain to drink in a public government building or who you could legally marry. Those two examples (and many, many more) had s*** to do with regulating business.
And therefore these laws had nothing to do with my point, are in fact completely irrelevant. Not sure why you felt the need to bring that up.
Jim Crow laws were a function of states exercising the will of a majority who did not consider a minority as equal human beings. No amount of revisionism is every going to wash away that stain from history.
Seriously, dude, what did I say that was "revisionism"? Where did I say that "Jim Crow" laws were not a stain on the history of the USA? Where did I say that a majority wasn't in favor of them?
What I said was that you would never get 100% of all businesses to mistreat some of their customers without the force of law. I stand by that.
If I were a minority and some businesses treated me poorly while others treated me well, I would vote with my dollars and spend my money at the businesses that treated me well. Over time, economic forces would punish the jerks and reward the nice businesses. Because the Jim Crow laws required all businesses to treat minorities poorly, this feedback mechanism was impaired.
I'm sure that in practice the minorities could tell which businesses were enthusiastic about the arrangement and which were not, and in practice the nice businesses tended to get more money from minorities than the jerks. I'm also sure that in those times and places the minorities had less money than the majorities, but over time I still think the feedback effect would have a significant effect.
Just in case you still fail to understand my position: I am opposed to any sort of laws that try to put the boot of government on the neck of minorities. In fact I'm pretty much opposed to the boot of government on the neck of anyone, even people I dislike very much. I am in favor of government being very small and doing very little, chiefly things like running fair courts and enforcing the laws against violence, theft, and fraud.
I'm even opposed to government forcing a bakery to make a cake for any particular customer. If someone goes into a Jewish bakery and demands a cake that says "Hitler", the bakery shouldn't have to make it. If a gay couple goes into a Christian bakery and demands a cake that celebrates a gay wedding, the bakery shouldn't have to make it. If a Christian goes into a gay bakery and demands a cake with the message "Leviticus 18:22" on it, the bakery shouldn't have to make it. This isn't like a life-saving emergency room or something... there are plenty of places to get cakes. People should vote with their dollars, and reward the bakeries that make the cakes they want made.
And before you accuse me of anything, I'm in favor of letting gay people get married, I have friends who are same-sex married couples, and I have attended two gay weddings (one before it had legal force in my state and one after). What I am not in favor of is using the force of government to make people behave a certain way.
P.S. My understanding is that not everyone who favored the Jim Crow laws were all racist jerks; some of them thought that the "separate but equal" facilities would reduce friction between racist white jerks and minorities, and thus this was a way to protect minorities. Even if they had good intentions, I reject the idea of Jim Crow laws.