This has been an absolutely fascinating discussion.
I am particularly glad to see the discourse on the legalist conception of anti-discrimination, versus a more...fundamental position on the subject.
The primary contradiction I believe Charles is effectively highlighting here is the difference between private property and personal property, and what exactly it means to extend access to property to "the public."
The secondary contradiction less emphasized is the difference between a constitutional RKBA versus a fundamental or natural right to defend oneself with those means appropriate to the present material condition, for our purposes, carrying small arms, but throughout history those tools have been different, and in the future will also be different.
I am firmly of the belief that a State and/or Constitution granting you a right is not a right at all, but a privilege that can be withdrawn without any reasonable recourse. Further, the government has an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of force and imprisonment, which is primarily used to selectively protect "rights," the only of which is truly treated as not-to-be-infringed is the right to privately own the means of production and therefore extract surplus labor value.
TL;DR KFC's private property > your RKBA because the constitution is designed to uphold capitalist relations of production.
Edit:
Kropotkin is ******* awesome.
I concur on your theory that government's grant privileges, however, only due in part to the ignorance or fear of its citizens. Natural law and yes our Constitution protects are rights but only if we are capable of exercising them and knowing and protecting what they stand for.. The problem is that most folks are happy with their so-called privileges, and are lax in knowing and protecting their rights.. It is much easier to accept a privilege, than fight for a right..
Concerning property rights, the framers considered "property rights" the most favored right of that time, however today,with asset forfeitures and such other thief of property by government ( eminent domain) etc. No knock warrants, 21st America does not respect property with the same convictions of the founders.
Regarding prince Kropotkin, he was heavily influenced by Pierre Proudhon, arguable the first named Anarchist. Both their ideas of property rights, I do not agree thereof. Their ideologies were more inline with a communist system.. If all people were Saints and Angels, their philosophy would indeed work.
Proudhon in his, " Confessions of a Revolution".. stated, ' Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant and I declare him my enemy"... Clearly, on this, I agree!
On being Governed he opined.. " To be Governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by CREATURES WHO HAVE NEITHER THE RIGHT NOR TTHE WISDOM NOR THE VIRTUE TO DO SO.". ( Emphasis Mine)...
Rad, if your a fan of Prince Peter, if you have not already, please read What is Property, by Proudhon
My .02
Regards
CCJ