The company cannot use "private property!" as an excuse to say no Mexicans or blacks allowed.
Interesting you put private property in quotes.
They should be able to exclude anyone they want. If excluding Mexicans and blacks were perfectly legal and they chose to do it, care to guess how long they would stay in business? Not only would they lose the business of all blacks and Mexicans, they would lose the business of a
vast majority of white people too. They would be quickly replaced by someone who wasn't racist scum. Problem solved. No rights violated.
Don't say that the excluded people's rights were violated, either. They weren't. No one has a right to someone else's property unless the exchange is mutually agreed to by both parties. Nor do they have a right to force someone to perform work for them against his will, even if they pay him for it. The fact that the law may say otherwise right now only means that the law is wrong.
I seriously doubt you'll win any cash. And if you did, you had better hope it enough that you'll never have to work again. Who would hire you after you so publicly admitted you couldn't be trusted to keep your word not to do what you said you wouldn't? Taking the money on the condition you wouldn't do something and then doing it anyway is the same as taking the money and then refusing to work. The law may allow you to do it, but it is still dishonest, and I wouldn't brag about the ability to get rich doing it.
Could Whirlpool demand that, in order to be admitted onto their private property, you must be wearing a pink tutu? You would say yes... their property, their rules. But the people who work there who don't want to wear pink tutus would have a different opinion. There is no reasonable basis for demanding that your employees wear pink tutus, just as there is no reasonable basis for telling them they cannot have a perfectly legal item locked in their car.
The people who work there can work somewhere else then. The owner of the property has no obligation to be reasonable when deciding who uses his property and how - it's his. Those people have no
right to those jobs. To say they do means they have a right to the owner's property on terms that are not acceptable to him. No one has a right to violate someone else's rights - no matter how unreasonable that person is being.
Using the previous example, how long do you think that company would stay in business if they demanded all of their employees wear pink tutus? Not long. Most of their employees would go to work elsewhere and they would be forced out of business or forced to change their policy - or find people to work for them that don't mind going to work in pink tutus. Either way, problem solved. No rights violated.
You can either follow the rules you agreed to and are paid to follow, you can take your gun to work anyway and face the consequences like a man, or you can find a job at a company that isn't run by gun fearin' wussies. Your choice.
The peaceful, voluntary association of free people is always the answer.
Freedom is always the answer.
Now there's a word that I don't like use carelessly when I mean it. Let us call it despise or detest. They are shooting themselves in the foot regularly. No sense of muzzle control.