The breakdown in black communities and families is due primarily to the war on drugs, not the Civil Rights Act.

It depends on the law. On the one hand, it is true that a bad law can cause problems (for example, the 18th Amendment, which was repealed by the 21st Amendment). However, the fact that bad laws can cause harm does NOT mean all laws are bad or that all laws cause harm. That would be a fallacy of association. Some laws are very good, in fact even necessary for civilization. With no law, we would have anarchy.

What kind of business do you run?

Actually, I'm pro-business and pro-strong* government. I just happen to strongly support Civil Rights. And yes, religious beliefs do not excuse a person from obeying the law. Religion must never be allowed to overrule government. Otherwise we would have a theocracy and not a republic.

(*Note that I said strong government, not big government. Big government is authoritarian, but weak government is anarchy. A small but strong government is ideal in my opinion.)

There are several religious beliefs which are not permissible under our current government. This isn't even a start on a comprehensive list, but here's a few examples:

1. Polygamy: Fundamental to Judaism, Islam, and Mormonism.
2. Racism: Judaism ("The Chosen People"), Islam ("Mohammed was the best man from the best family of the best tribe among the best etc."), many Christian sects, Shintoism.
3. Vigilantism: Judaism, Islam, some Christian sects.
4. Sacred Prostitution: Numerous pagan religions.
5. Human Sacrifice. (I invariably cite the requirement for sacrifice to Huitzilopotchli, "Lest the sun go out!")
6. Collective Suicide. - MASADA -, and I do hope that you can tick off a few of these "cults" yourself.

Ultimately, there have to be limits on religious freedom. While private associations may limit their memberships, public commerce and public accommodations are quite different matters. Or would you rather that we revert back to the interminable religious totalitarianism and strife that gave us internecine conflicts such as the Thirty Years' War and the Crusades? Freedom from religious persecution was one of the principles that our government was founded upon. The Founding Fathers, so well schooled in history, grasped this clearly. That's why it I'm so astounded that the religious fundamentalists of today seem to struggle with it so much.

Fix what?

Thomas Sowell makes the argument that the Civil Rights movement has hurt minorities more than it has helped them. It's an argument I've heard before, but I'm not convinced, and Thomas Sowell fails to provide any convincing evidence in that video. His main argument is essentially just a post-hoc fallacy that African Americans were progressing faster before the Civil Rights movement than they were after, and therefore the Civil Rights movement was the cause of their stagnation. However, we must be careful not to engage in post-hoc reasoning (just because event A occurs before event B, that doesn't mean event A caused event B).

Honestly, I think the thing that's hurting African Americans more than anything right now is the war on drugs (which disproportionately targets African Americans), and not the after affects of the Civil Rights movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7M9eYHjC...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9...

I think it's self-evident...

It would most likely involve low-skill manual labor of some kind. So not impossible, but it would definitely need some thinking and proper organization to make it work right. But that's a long way off, and I would rather focus on other things first to develop my skills as a business owner before tackling something so experimental.

Sorry, but that article contains absolutely no examples whatsoever of Civil Rights harming minorities. That entire article amounts to nothing more than a prejudiced bigot arguing against equal rights.

Granted, there have been some (rare) cases where a person might have thought they were being discriminated against when they're really weren't, but that is not a legitimate reason for opposing Civil Rights.

Also, the man who wrote that article, Harry Browne, is the author of a book titled "Why Government Doesn't Work," which is simply a rediculous statement. There are certain kinds of government which don't work (Communism, Socialism, Fascism, etc.). If he said Communist government doesn't work, he would be right. If he said Socialist government doesn't work, he would be right. But to simply say that government of any kind doesn't work is such an absurd statement that anyone who makes it can be called nothing but an anarchist. He has no credibility.

Choosing not to hire people who lack the skills necessary to do the job is not discrimination. In order for any selective action to qualify as discrimination, it would have be a prejudiced judgement against an immutable trait or characteristic. Lack of skill is obviously not an immutable trait, and therefore making hiring decisions based on lack of skill does not qualify as discrimination.

Though I admit I have dreamed about creating some kind of company that could put low or unskilled laborers (such as homeless people) to work, but I'm not quite sure how I would work out the logistics of that, so for now I'm just focusing on developing my skills so I can eventually create my game development company.

How does refusing business to a person simply because they're a minority harm that person? Really? You're actually asking me that?

Crossing the street doesn't harm anyone. Refusing business to them does.

And discrimination is already outlawed against minorities, women, people with disabilities, veterans, and a few other categories as well. I simply think those same protections which already exist for these groups should be extended to the LGBT community as well (and they already are in several states).

You said "unsavory appearance," which is a term that, if given legal sanction as valid reason for discrimination, could permit racist business owners to drive out customers of a certain race on the grounds that they had an unsavory appearance. It could also be used to drive out anyone the business owner simply thought was ugly. Have you ever heard of the Ugly Laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_law

Oh, and just so you know, back in the 1960s and earlier, people who opposed equal rights for African Americans tried to use the argument that if blacks were allowed into their bars and their restaurants, it would drive off their white customers.

So congratulations for succumbing to the same logic used by the defenders of Jim Crow laws. ;)