Talk about refusing to admit to a failing ideology...prohibition.  All ideologies represented in government are down with that fail...and won't admit it's time to bend to some libertarian ideas on that front.

Ayn Rand was quite forthright in stating (in her novels and elsewhere) that:  "the only people who should inherit are those who [are so capable they] would not need it" [because they'd make themselves wealthy through merit, skill and drive].

In other words, in Rand's world the John Galts were the only ones who should inherit, b/c they were so skilled and superior they would be able to put it to an even better use.  The worthless, feckless sons and daughters of the rich (calling Mr. Bush) would take nothing because of their worthless, feckless nature.  Of course, IIRC even Rand recognized there was no principled way for anyone to discern which sons and daughters of the rich were worthless/feckless and which not, so only a wholly confiscatory estate tax was workable.

In the days since President Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new offshore wells and a halt to a controversial type of environmental waiver that was given to the Deepwater Horizon, at least seven new drilling permits and five waivers have been granted, according to records.

The records also indicate that since the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, federal regulators have granted at least 19 environmental waivers for gulf drilling projects and at least 17 drilling permits, most of which were for types of work like that on the Deepwater Horizon shortly before it exploded, pouring a ceaseless current of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. link

This is the bitter reality of the American present, a period in which big business has cemented an unholy alliance with big government against the interests of ordinary Americans, who, of course, are the great majority of Americans. The great majority of Americans no longer matter. link

That being said, obviously if people are causing actual disturbances (not just staring) than you are free to remove them from your place of business.

I don't see why an individual, using his/her own private capital shouldn't be able to run their enterprise just about any way they please.

People need jobs to live.  People need to go to stores to buy things to live.  People need places to stay when they travel.  People need places to live.

All of those are places of PUBLIC accommodation which make their money by admitting the general public to them.  They choose to make their living offering a public accommodation, it should accommodate the public without prejudice.  If people don't want to serve the public, they should choose other ways of making their living.  

To people who live in cities or even large towns where there are a plethora of options, or to people who have never been denied anything on the basis of their race, etc., it might not seem like a big deal to walk a little farther, take the subway to the next stop, and go someplace else to shop, or eat, or stay, or live.  However, where there isn't a plethora of shops, people will find themselves shut out or badly inconvenienced if one store, or one chain of stores, or one neighborhood, or one hotel, or one anything refuses to provide them with a public service or a job because of their race etc.

(In fact, this limitation of services is exactly what the anti-choice movement is creating all over the country.)