Which would be illegal as race is a legally protected status.
That seems like a grey area but it's treading pretty close to discrimination in my mind.
Then again, should Google be forced to put adsense ads on a porn site? Really murky territory.
Nope. As I understand it, sexual orientation is not officially a protected class[0]. Seems like it should be, but it isn't.
It is not protected under federal public accommodation law like race is.
Gender identity and sexual orientation are each protected under minority of state laws (overlapping but not identical minorities, IIRC.)
> That seems like a grey area but it's treading pretty close to discrimination in my mind.
It's absolutely discrimination. The question is whether it is or should be illegal discrimination.
Legislation to make it illegal was an act of society deciding that an otherwise-legal business decision was so unpalatable it must be prevented. -- That's what makes it such a good hypothetical. You can ask yourself "if such business decisions were legal, should they be prevented or discouraged? And what mechanisms would be appropriate?"
So I don't understand your point. Yes, it's illegal now.
Are you arguing for companies to always operate as they see fit, as long as it's legal, and regardless of moral opinions of anyone other than themselves?
Are you arguing that there shouldn't be any moral-based laws to stop discrimination like this one?
Are you making a point that companies should be stopped from making immoral decisions with the force of law beyond the current limitations?
Are you making a point that the current set of groups legislation gives legal protection perfectly overlaps with the set of groups that that morally should have protection from otherwise-legal business decisions?
Are you simply being a pedant about the current boundaries of law without meaningful contribution to clean up the hypothetical or clarify the questions raised by the conversation at hand?
In practice: I'd take the bet that a white person of Muslim faith could get around a "no Muslims" rule most of the time. "No Muslims", then, can be a proxy for "no middle-Eastern looking folks".
"Shouldn't a company, regardless of the service they provide, be free to establish their own conditions under which they will act or not act?"
like a restaurant in south refusing to serve blacks? with restaurant you have at least some options, but with businesses with monopoly finding an alternative is very hard or expensive.