As a Libertarian, I am not a Ron Paul supporter. While I support many of his policies, including foreign policy, I cannot and will not support this national R-love-ution bullshit for 3 reasons:
1) his conservative, non-libertarian views on social welfare,
2) his conservative, non-libertarian views on civil rights, and
3) his conservative "anarcho-capitalist" view of property rights.
I wish to speak to the 2nd issue: The apparent "right" to refuse service. The Pauloids believe that true "freedom" is expressed in our acceptance of Lester Maddox's "right" to chase a black guy out of his diner, of the "right" for businesses to refuse service to anybody they wish on grounds of race, gender, or whatever bug is up their asses.
This is ideologically grounded to the view that property rights are "inherent" and not simply "privileges" of law. No serious discussion can be had with these pyschoids, no argument can be put to justify their claims to Title outside of "finders-keepers" or the "call shotgun" rule. This claim of allodial title, for no other reason than their CLAIM at gun-point, is not "libertarian" in any sense of the word.
One argument for the "right to discriminate" is based on this plantation mentality. The other argument attempts to argue that a "free" market should include the "freedom to discriminate" or "to exclude".
Liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to access markets, to access rights of way, to live and trade without artificial barriers or threat of force. A person who offers goods or services to the public is bound to respect the rights of others. This is obviously not the case with those who discriminate or exclude.
A libertarian government should protect the rights of all persons equally. Limiting market access on the basis of race etc. is a violation of our responsibility to recognize the equal rights of others. It's pretty simple folks. Maybe Ron Paul can run for King of Idaho, but he'll never be my choice for POTUS.