If you can prove that would happen. Jim Crow was GOVERNMENT policy, not the market at work.

Your absurd view of society as monolithic is what is amusing. At some point, black people who did not want to work in the fields would offer their labor elsewhere at an advantageous price, and some business would accept that offer and employ black people in order to gain a competitive advantage. The "society" you speak of is exactly what I seek to avoid by endorsing a free-market! It is LAWS that cause such practices, and these are laws that inhibit trade and work, you imbecile! Why don't you find a post where I endorse only a partially free market? If the free market is truly practiced, and the government ARE prohibited from interfering in it, your scenario would NOT happen! Segregation is NOT a free market practice. How on earth is specifying the conditions under which businesses may serve their customers a free market practice? How is specifying who a employer may hire, and what labor he may employ particular individuals at, part of a free market?

Companies that did NOT require such practices would have a competitive advantage in hiring female employees. Unless you think women are too inept for an employer to seek to hire one for her beneficial qualities?

What exactly, is a novelty practice like same sex marriage protecting anyone from? The principle you cite is needed to protect people from having to fund such farcical practices because of the fashions among those with power.