I honestly didn’t intend any snark there; it was just an observation.
When I first fell in love with libertarianism, it was after reading some of John Stossel’s books. Stossel loved to focus on free market successes, like toll roads improving traffic patterns, or exotic animal farms resulting in a population increase for endangered species. In other words, Stossel sold libertarianism based on its outcomes, a strategy that stands in stark contrast to this thread and the other one, where freedom seems to be its own reward.
It didn’t take me long to become disillusioned, though, especially with the cherry-picking. Sure, ivory farms might protect elephant populations in order to sell that sweet, sweet ivory, but most endangered species aren’t sexy or profitable; the free market has no answer to that.
So it is here, where there are lots of restaurants that mostly don’t discriminate anyway, and if they do, people have plenty of alternatives, and boycotts are likely, and nobody wants a spitburger anyway. But housing discrimination is very real. Because units are limited in number, landlords can easily discriminate without signs. Because the number of potential customers is small, boycotts are unlikely. And because someone’s location determines access to public schools, safety, and better access to goods and services (like not living in a food desert), people will surely be willing to tolerate living under a discriminatory landlord if it nets them all of those other great benefits.
I find that I’m very open to most libertarian ideas, even still. If libertarians want to argue that protected classes are obsolete, they can make their case. If they want to argue that they’re too broad (maybe not all races/genders/religions need protecting, or maybe not all businesses, like restaurants, need to adhere to them), I’d listen to that argument. But I think that doing away with them altogether will cause society more harm than we’d benefit.