Using what factors SHOULD a private business be able to pick and choose its clientele? Race, sex, sexual orientation, something else?

How about a registered pedophile in your café? Can you decline service then? Or perhaps a roudy group of teenagers, pick a race, who have no consideration for adjacent tables at a restaurant cussing a lot, and sharing loud videos with vulgar language on their phones with one another laughing loudly about them? Maybe at a barber shop with children around? Maybe a white guy with a swastika trimmed in his hair at an establishment like "Fun Factory" or "chuck e Cheese". Or a black guy who refuses to pull his pants up, and sits his thin boxered sweaty butt with no pant cover in the seats of your restaurant? Gun retailers reserve a right not to sell firearms EVEN IF the background check comes back 100% clean. It's not a requirement for them to uphold the 2A at all. That's a restriction for the GOVERNMENT, in relation to the people. The GOVERNMENT isn't supposed to restrict your freedom of speech. ANY business can. Whether or not it's good "practice", who knows. The Economy will certainly answer that, just as it has answered to "Chik File" (however it's spelled) "discriminating" against homosexuals. They're doing GREAT btw. Point I'm making to you ma'am, is it's hardly the government's responsibility or "lane" if you will, to decide what businesses do, and how their owners "express" themselves. You can be sure if it's wrong, their business will inevitably fail. And by "wrong" I certainly don't mean the opinion of a handful of people. I mean the general public. More effective than the electoral college if you really think about it.

Age discrimination? Aka senior discounts? Non-veteran discrimination? Aka military discounts?

How are these not discrimination? We can't just make it acceptable when it's convenient to us...

CW3 (Join to see) - A registered pedophile (How likely are you to know the criminal background of anyone sitting next to you anywhere?) Disturbance of the peace (loud videos, vulgar language), moderating self expression (moderated in some instances as a disruption if done in school) (swastika in hair and wearing your pants low), public safety (sitting on seat with buttocks exposed) are all different issues than race discrimination. Society either accepts or rejects these types of things according to accepted norms that are already in place. I never said in my reply it is the governments responsibility to decide what business can or cannot do. I said "It would be poor business practice to turn someone away based on any of the factors listed above." By above I'm referring to the original post.

CW3 (Join to see) - There's a difference in your hypothetical situations:
1. Registered pedophile - if they are out and about, on the streets, they have served their time for their crime and should be granted the same rights of doing business as everyone else.
2. "Rowdy" teenagers - a business owner can articulate that they are being "discriminated" against because of their disruptive actions - things they control - not their skin color - which they don't.

The thing is, business owners can already choose not serve a person, individually, they just can't choose not to serve a group of people. (ie, "no whites" or "no straights" or "no left handed people").

I disagree with your presumption that "the people" will "do the right thing" and cause bad business practices to fail. People do what suits them best - regardless of "right or wrong." If we left it up to "the people" alone, we would still have slavery in the south. We would still have child labor sweatshops. We would have those things because they make things cheaper. "The people" care more about the bottom dollar than they do about "right or wrong."