I think the issue will continue thirty years from now. Perhaps not one hundred years from now, but for the most part you're spot on. Every progressive will have to deal with a conservative. The push-back is there.

This is an example of a fallacy called the "Nirvana fallacy." In your case it goes something like this, "Free market can't solve every case of discrimination, therefore government." You fail to prove that in the cases where the free-market does fail (the gay trip in the middle of Indiana example) that government would do any better (if there were anti-discrimination laws.) Chances are that the mechanic in the middle of po-dunk Indiana would give less than a shit about the law and would discriminate anyway. It would be your word against his with no substantial evidence. The small town judge would collaborate with the existing mechanic (unless he had enemies.) Overall you would be wasting your time and money to try to sue him in such a scenario. He could say he refused service to you because right next to your rainbow flag you had an Bernie Sanders for 2016 sticker and he doesn't do work for socialists (which as far as I recall, is perfectly legal.)  So on and so on. It says a lot of how strongly the market actually does target real world discrimination that you have to choose an obscure example that doesn't even work by government mandate either. 

You proceed to mention Chick-Fil-A as an example of a company that didn't lose at least something by market forces. Well there are problems with this example. 1. Chick-Fil-A is not a discriminatory case. They were still selling to gay people. The chief-operating officer just brought his own opinions into the debate on gay marriage and used it to represent the company. Do you believe that his speech should be regulated because the market didn't prevent him from saying shitty things? Of course not. 2. Said officer was reprimanded for his actions by the company, likely due to an analysis that if they didn't deal well with bad publicity in the future they will experience losses. (Source) Chick-Fil-A also reduced funding to anti-gay activist groups in response to the incident. 3. Here is a paper which has thoroughly investigated the matter of free-market and tolerance.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/kykl.12017/abstract

Tolerance has the potential to affect both economic growth and wellbeing. It is therefore important to discern its determinants. We contribute to the literature by investigating whether the degree to which economic institutions and policies are market-oriented is related to different measures of tolerance. Cross-sectional and first-difference regression analysis of up to 69 countries reveals that economic freedom is positively related to tolerance towards homosexuals, especially in the longer run, while tolerance towards people of a different race and a willingness to teach kids tolerance are not strongly affected by how free markets are. Stable monetary policy and outcomes is the area of economic freedom most consistently associated with greater tolerance, but the quality of the legal system seems to matter as well. Through instrumental variables and first-difference results we find indications of a causal relationship.

4. Boycotting a business is not the only market factor involved. If a business discriminates it is giving its customers to competitors, as they are not allowed to purchase goods at said first business. This benefits the competitor and harms (by poor choices) the first business. In markets where a minority is not a minority (the south) this is especially true. In markets where the minority is still a minority (the north) this is also true. Eliminating a consumer/producer base creates issues for an economy. That is why southerners had to rely on slavery and then Jim Crow laws to get the best of both worlds, serve black consumers (get their money) but also not have to treat them the same as whites to get said money. 

In your cost-benefit analysis you forget to consider costs of legislation and also unforeseen consequences. Furthermore you use faulty premises like "public roads go to the business therefore they must do the governments bidding." I'll explain quickly why this is fault. 1. The money used to pay for the roads comes from your local (or if on  a state road - state) taxes. Therefore you already paid the debt you owed for the road and are no longer indebted. Furthermore, a business must only get a license because government says so. It isn't as if a business (if they were giving freedom to do so) couldn't work without a government awarded license (doctor's licenses for example are privately awarded.) 2. If we use such logic then we are all leasers of government property and only permitted to use it in so much as a central authority in washington, our state capital, or our city council decides us to own something. That is a degredation of property rights, which in the long term, eliminates much economic freedom (as I said unforeseen consequences.) If the assumption is that economic freedom is important as well as social freedom, then this is an issue separate from religion (which is why I am against anti-discrimination despite probably falling within multiple groups which could be likely discriminated against and also being an athiest.) You mention that our two options are a law that protects discrimination and protects against discrimination. Those aren't our two options. There is a third option: not get the state involved in the private affairs of how people associate with one another and don't waste tax money on either law. 

Beside the argument that a degredation of property rights will degrade economic freedom, let's also look at the cases in which this law seems to address. The "wedding cake" incidents. In one case a couple who owned a bakery and who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay marriage was demanded to pay $100,000 to the gay couple they refused. So one group of people gets $100,000 (or some percentage of that) from another group of people, and they also know very well that they can go to another store possibly as close as down the street and buy a wedding cake. Their wedding was just paid for and they got their cake. Tough deal there, I must say. In the second case, the baker was forced to close his business. Are these state powers over one's private business reasonable in a society which posits economic freedom? In the end who was hurt more? How exactly do you think the religious right would respond to such a scenario? They'll become fearful and hold even more animosity toward gays, when otherwise they might have just been accepting it as a reality of the times which probably won't really affect them. In response, they create a law to combat this, and said law might have undesirable and unintended effects. Sure we might be able to think of another specific scenario of discrimination against people based on sexuality that is more debalitating than this one, but fortunately such examples aren't rising up. No matter how much I look for it I can't find information about a gay person not being able to find something to eat, not receiving health-care, or dieing in the middle of nowhere because somebody refused to fix their car in the plethora of states which do not prohibit discrimination based on sexuality. Even if it were true that gays are harmed by said property rights, we are also benefited as everyone is by proper property rights. If we were to make laws by how they affect people, then the number 1 law people in the LGBT should be against is any law which supports freedom of speech. Hate speech towards gays by their family and strangers probably hurts us a lot more than sporadic discrimination when introduced to the religious right. Nevertheless, I think most LGBT people support free speech in all of its cases, even hate speech, because they recognize that any facilities that are put in to place to regulate hate speech will also regulate non-hate speech, and by trying to restrict others of their rights we in turn lose our own. 

Anyway, sorry for the long wall. :) I thought I'd reply because I found your post to collect all of the common arguments against propertarinism in this context. 

1.  Actually no, the law allows religious feelings to override all other laws.  So you could not punish an ER doctor for refusing service. That would be a violating of the law.

2  Again, no unlike the national and all other laws, Indiana's one makes a special case for Private Business.  So they can do what they want or feel and can not be punished for it.

3.  They didn't lose money in the suit, they lost money cause nobody else wanted to buy from them.  They lost most all of their customers – bigotry is frowned upon in the USA.  And they violated State Law in that case AND make cakes for 'happy Satan Day' and other things (after the refusal) that would also be a violation of their 'Christian Values' if they genuily had some (But just hated the gay.)  They had also made cake for the two women, and their anniversaries for years before.  They only got in legal trouble because they directly violated State Law.

4.  Yes, this absolutely is a Christian version of Shiria Law.  It is directly against the founding of the country (removing all religion, and the head of the state and Church being the same person, etc.)  This law is against the founding principals of the USA.  This law puts religion above all other laws.  It's part of the reason the reaction is so huge. 

5.  You must not have followed the Prop 8 or DOMA cases where 'highest scrutiny' has been cited numerous times in Federal Courts. Also in In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008) was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.

6.  I know, isn't it fun!  Let's make a 'Church of the Tax Free!'

6a  Religions as used in the USA for nearly a hundred years to justify slavery (and in the areas long before that.)  And Rape of women and other such wholesome activities.

PS Someone has already made a ‘Church of Cannabis.'

Even Walmart and NASCAR have come out against it.  Rather amazing IMO.

You missed the context of my post. It was about markets targetting discrimination, not government. Nothing pertaining specifically to this law. 

4. No it's not. It is like saying, " if you advocate the government's involvement in the economy, it is the same thing as a communist." Rational people can calculate degrees of something, and this law is nowhere near as close to the breadth and depth in which Sharia law affects people's lives in Islamic countries (hetero and non hetero alike.) 

5. That has more to do with the 14th Amendment of the U.S constitution than CRA. As it is right now, the Supreme Court hasn't said anything about same-sex discrimination. Notice "laws that treat people differently" rather than "private persons that treat people differently." 

6. That seems out of context. 

A business in Indiana was thanking the governor and didn't believe the law was discriminatory. Let the blind discrimination begin!

4. Nah, " if you advocate the government's involvement in the economy, it is the same thing as a communist"  Socialism, that is socialism.  Like the Fire Department, Police, Paramedics- they serve everyone regardless of financial status.  It's socialism, and I have no problem with it.

That recent case where the FD just watched and let someone who hadn’t pay some extra fee's house burn shows that it's a good idea for the good of all to protect everyone.  They only started to fight it when the fire grew and spread to other people's homes.  (Plus the insurance companies bill are so much higher now.)

Also the growing of resistant strains of tuberculosis are a result of Regan throwing the homeless (mentally ill) people out on the streets, AIDS and a combination of the two.  If we had better universal care, the new TB would have been minimized.  In the late 90’s around 1/3 of LA’s homeless population tested positive for TB.  

6.  Really?  It's a direct consequence of the Indiana law.  I think it’s funny he accidently made marijuana legal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/30/the-first-church-of-cannabis-was-approved-after-indianas-religious-freedom-law-was-passed/

4. My point was an analogy of two different statements in which one person equates one instance with another without regard for the real-world degree. Also the government can and often does have a role in an economy without owning the means of production, and therefore not providing a social good. None of what you typed after that is relevant. 

6. My statement was that, " religion does not protect someone if they initiate force, such as: enslaving another human being, stealing from them, or mudering them." It might've in the past, but in today's world it is not protected by the state. So yeah, saying that Christianity justified slavery in 17th - 19th centuries isn't relevant to what my original statement was. 

i dont know if this is realy antigay. that can happen to heterosexuells too.  the only way out is to marry

True, but if you can't marry, or make legal documents similar to them (which was illegal in some states) you have no rights.

Which is one of the reason people fought so hard for same sex marriage.  Cause they didn't have any other options.

I think it will be about as controversial in 15 years as is letting women work, own property, and drive is today.

It is anti-gay. They are hiding and using the bible as a crutch to be prejudiced, when the bible says tells people to love their neighbor and even their enemy. Then again...the bible tends to contradict itself, so one book might have different material than another pertaining to the same thing.

Getting the governor to make an law that allows businesses to turn away gays is like a lobbyist from a corporation to get an unfair law pushed againsts the general public (which happens a little bit too much in the US). Difference is one is against a minority by a believer who doesn't read his bible properly.