Those laws don't exist because we don't agree with their reasons. They exist to protect people who have been categorically repressed for hundreds of years.
What if they register their ideology as a religion? Iirc it is a protected class in US so they cannot be banned due to it.
However people getting banned like this rarely are inventive enough to figure out ways to fight back.
The thing about the law is that it doesn't operate like code. You can't just cast<Religion>(ideology) and expect it to work within the framework of law, because the law is (luckily) interpreted by people who expect it to be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous.
Otherwise, literally every corporation would already have registered themselves as a religion just to avoid paying taxes.
Maybe a case could be made for political affiliation under "creed," since there appears to be no specific legal definition for that[1], although the consensus seems to be centered around religious belief.
In any case, since one can (and many people do) change their political affiliations often, I would expect such a law to meet with some extreme legal challenges at the very least, because it seems like such an obvious attempt to game the system, particularly since "discrimination against a political group" is pretty much the purpose of other political groups.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
[1]https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8686/what-is-a-creed...
I personally think there's something fundamentally undemocratic about barring discrimination against political ideology because that comes too close to interfering with freedom of speech or freedom of association or the exercise of politics itself.
Although not the historical reason, a far simpler one is: you can change your mind and ideas but can't change your race.
In addition, it is that behavior and not that belief that gets the racist removed from the premises. You can choose to be quiet about your ideas where they are not welcome, but you can't choose to not be your race where it is not welcome.
So we can ban people for/against atheism because it's an idea one could theoretically change their minds on?
Atheism is literally the opposite of religion.
Did you know that the incident in question is about this Sargon fellow attacking white nationalists? So to further kill the analogy, you kicked a fellow out of your pub for saying mean things things against racism while at another pub.
But then a world in which race was a choice would be so different from our own that one would wonder whether racial discrimination would even exist, or what "black" would even mean.
I am not saying I agree or disagree with it, but perhaps things are not as hypothetical as you believe.
* Yes, "society" here works through state. But without a reasonably wide consensus in the society, a norm cannot be effectively imposed: most people would break it and be sure that everyone around won't mind. (Manufacturing such a consent, if it's not yet there, is another business.)
That is, we want businesses to have the right to choose who to do business with, unless we disagree with their reasons for not wanting to do business with someone.