It's not so much a hypothetical as it is a thought experiment showing that a principle must be applied consistently if it's to be a principle, and helping to explain what that principle is. It seems you've misunderstood what I meant by "fully informed," though. When it's plainly obvious someone is just making something up to escape an obligation, that wouldn't be considered legitimate grounds to back out of a contract. On the other hand, it should be fairly obvious, one can easily get testimony from neighbors as to whether someone actually holds a position, when someone has a personal objection and is being truthful about it.
The contention you're making is that civil society can't be trusted to root out the people who give bad reasons for their denial, and so government must compulse them. On the contrary, it's a statist wet dream that we can trust government when civil society fails, as Herr Mises says: "If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.” Though things may be bad, the idea that a bureaucratic institution can force anyone to behave virtuously is a ridiculous notion. Civil society; communities, churches, charities, associations, and the individual himself, is what makes a person virtuous or vile. Politics is generally downstream from culture, so what bureaucratization does is give inertia cultural norms. It (usually) cannot change cultural norms by use of force, and will only create more resentment, unrest, and hatred, just like it did in the South after the Civil War.
Because of all this, I forward that society would be much better off if there was no public access at all, as in all things were privately owned. Why? Because, at best, governments imitate a virtuous society and, at worst, suppress good change by bureaucratization of bad social norms. Governments force everyone to abide by those rules, and if the government simply didn't have the power to impose such rules then the choice would be left to the individual. It then follows that at least some virtuous people in an otherwise morally corrupt society would be allowed to open their drinking fountains and banks and other establishments to whomever is being discriminated against, and start to overtake the others because of the incredible boon their business gets. In fact, when left alone, this is what blacks did in the South: they made their own enclaves and restaurants and investment firms and grew prosperous because they practiced their own discrimination and catered to themselves, and supported those who would support them. That's what makes the community strong, its power to rise above and compete with other communities rather than having to come begging for work and services. And rise it did, until it was all demolished by laws and programs such as The Great Society. Discrimination goes both ways; society isn't one huge, monolithic entity (as opposed to the state / government, which has monopoly on the use of force), and that's a far better situation than forcing people which, again, creates resentment and hatred and breaks down civil discourse. In a virtuous society, the bad actors would simply be boycotted out of existence, would otherwise be inconsequential, or be converted through reason to the truth (for, that which is true is good, and that which is true has all the best arguments) of liberty and harmonious civil society.
No matter what way one puts it, it seems that liberty, consistently applied, comes out on top.
Yes, but a major problem with that is that assumes that most people are intellectual and know what exactly they're doing and won't pull some unjust BS. Especially with 200 million people in a country, and which most people are pretty lazy and not capable of living in a completely libertarian society, that's one of the reasons why gov. exists, most people are follows and want to be lead, even if you get rid of it's going to come back, it'd only work effectively in a world where the human mind doesn't have people who lead and people who follow, everyone would have to be on the same playing field, which is never the case. It assumes that everyone is so generous and will surely do the right, intellectual thing.
There's a reason why government exists, there has to be some kind of government in order to there to even be a country, otherwise you get people that form factions to rise to power anyway, once again, there being a government. The best you can do is to make sure that your government is as balanced as possible. The government isn't one big entity, is a very complicate system of checks and balances, and very specific laws.
And yeah, yeah, discrimination goes both ways, I know that, but I'd rather not have anyone discriminated, I don't care if they're a natzi or a jew, if they're not causing any harm then it's pointless for them to be discriminated against at all. Yes, many black people did prosper in parts across the country, but that wasn't in the south where most of them got lynched and were discriminated things like basic voting rights, the laws came into effect for a reason.
There's no such thing as a government that's not with some kind of force. It needs reform from the corruption it is now, yes.(Especially when the government spends money on useless things such as billion dollar jets we never use.) But the best we can do is to make sure it is fair and logical as possible. There's no such thing as an utopia, yes, but government is very important. Most things you rely on and pay for in your taxes, the internet itself is even a gov. funded project. And paying taxes is suppose to get you required things such as roads, buildings, and schools. Hell, firefighters, police, and military. What needs to be done is to make sure the government is actually productive, unlike it is right now. It's also nice to actually get along with people regardless who they are based on actual qualities they can present rather than childish prejudices, that's how you intoxicate your own country where only ONE group reigns, just the majority, but it's not the gov., so it's okay for them to use even more so force.(Even though they play the same role.) Which, by the way, would also be some intellectuals, but mostly people who solely follow, that's part of human nature.
TLDR; Freedom is very important, but so are protections and regulations, which SHOULD be the primary goal of the government, though sadly it isnt.(Though again, there's many branches that play many different roles.) Keeping its own people well while also making sure it's country is stable. Anti discrimination laws are part of the whole protecting its people part.
Not to say that libertarian ideals has no place at all in gov., it just shouldn't be the ENTIRE system, just like any idealology, that leads to quite terrible things. Hell, I considered myself libertarian before I thought about the extremes of it, much like any other system. Though much of this goes more so with anarchist rather than libertarian, libertarian is much more so trading in big government with big business if we were to get rid of the government so much, one of the things they do after all is cancel out business monopoly.
Hell, we probably agree, I'm just throwing the most extreme I can of out their.
I mean, you did mention contracts and such, so there must be some form of regulation.