Let the market decide which bakers stay in business.

This argument is a lot like saying "Let God decide" when in reality it is people doing the deciding.

The free market is not inherently just or fair.

In the south many restaurants did not sell to African-Americans. Those restaurants did very well in the free market compared to restaurants that sold to African-Americans.

These laws exist because the market doesn't work the way we want them to. If discriminatory businesses failed because they were discriminatory, we wouldn't need such laws.

If people didn't recognize discrimination, we wouldn't have enacted those laws.

The market would have eventually driven these discriminatory businesses to bankruptcy. Majority public opinion had changed. That's why we were able to pass the laws. Would there be some holdouts? Maybe, but they probably wouldn't have lasted in the face of protests and pickets and lack of customers. Those that did would not be numerous enough to matter.

If you don’t believe that discriminatory companies don’t necessarily fail because they discriminate against minorities (especially small businesses in segregated communities), I kindly suggest you read Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) and Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).

The landscape may have evolved since, especially with large companies, but if you don’t believe there are still scores of small businesses in small towns who get away with discrimination on a frequent basis, you should get out some more.

The markets didn’t decide to only allow bakers that served all races to stay in business - the federal government passed a law that required bakers to serve all races and the market complied.

Capitalism actially straight up sometimes requires regulation. Sorry.

I'm coming to the conclusion that when the economic system is Capitalism the goverment will become a Plutocracy, regardless of how well regulated it is.

Money is power, and nothing concentrates wealth like capitalism.