The kinds of people who like turning Hispanics or Chinese away from their business establishments don't generally have the personality types that lead people to embrace the nonaggression principle.

This I agree with. However, I would not claim that the individual who acted this way was not a libertarian on these grounds.

As far as weird goes, I knew a couple over 20 years ago in New York who were into B&D, with defined roles in the relationship. They were both very committed libertarians. I see nothing inconsistent, or weird, about this. That was their thing. No one was being coerced. That is all that matters.

I think the article Brad Spangler links to sums up the problem quite nicely by pointing out that there are many "Thick" (to use the article's term) forms of libertarianism. There is the Left (to which I generally subscribe) there are the Objectivists, the paleolibertarians and I am sure many others. The article then goes on to argue for one type of "Thick". But why choose that one? Which "Thick" form is the "real" libertarianism. Are the "real libertarians" justified in using force against the "fake" ones, as they are against the state and other coercers?

Additionally the article states:

What’s going on in these cases is that consistent, principled libertarianism logically entails criticism of these social and cultural practices, for the same reason that it entails criticism of government intervention: because the non-aggression principle condemns any violence against individual rights to life, liberty, and property, regardless of who commits them.

This is wrong. "consistent, principled libertarianism" does not entail any such thing. It only entails that the libertarian in question not violate the rights of others (follow the Non-aggression principle). The above quote demands positive action. Therefore it is mistaken.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with being "weird". As far as the vast majority of the population is concerned, all libertarians are weird.