but a company is owned by people correct? By that logic, their desire for someone to purchase a product is higher priority than the rights of a store owner to their own property and being able to exchange it voluntarily.

I do not know what country you are from, but I would guess not American because white's only restaurants and segregation were mandated by state governments, not a function of the free market and the rights of property owners to exchange voluntarily. A great example of the free market being freer is Phillip Payton Jr who was one of the first black landlords in NYC. He bought buildings and sold apartments to black people which either made neighboring buildings depopulate (thus making them easier for him to buy) or pressured other NYC landlords to evolve their business practices and sell to black people. The profit incentive is the superior method for persuasion against racism as he illustrated. Money is money no matter who it is from so to not do business with anyone for a superficial reason is literally throwing away money. In the case of the racist neighbors and landlords, their were bought out by those who could adapt with the times, making NYC the most racially integrated it ever was, and probably ever will be.

All that is to say that you have incorrectly labeled segregation as a failing of the market and that might merit a new examination.