Dear Kate,
    Sometimes these discussions lose their history.  Tom wrote in reply
to you

    The old left/right paradigm has no application to the question of
    freedom i1n today's politics. There are many authoritarians, and
    many freedom-lovers, in each wing, and many who define freedom in a
    way that others would consider oppressive. (Your right to share in
    my property is inconsistent with my right to exclude you from doing
    so; your right to not be insulted may be inconsistent with my right
    to express myself, depending upon your sensitivites and my opinions.)

    You replied, mentioning a particular kind of property -- hearth and
home.  I wrote about another that, depending on the specifics, is
affected by Tom's parenthesis.

    But Kate, you forget, for instance, about the restaurant owner who
    may not want beautiful and buxom redheads for customers, but is
    obligated to open his doors to them.  I know you know that "property
    rights" was one banner held-up by segregationists.

So when you reply

    You are speaking of a public establishment in which services or
    goods are being sold to the general public. This was the person's
    decision to buy or lease a building in which to open up a business
    establishment to the public.  He or she is voluntarily sharing his
    or her property and for a price. After business hours, no one is
    legally allowed in the business without the owner's permission.

I'm puzzled.   You want to limit the definition of "property."  I see
nothing in Tom's post that does that.