> Your logic means no business can refuse to deal with any public company, because any company of any size has a(n) $ETHNICITY shareholder.

No, nothing offered upthread suggested that. First of all because it didn't refer to merely having a shareholder of a particular ethnicity, but more critically because it didn't suggest it was illegal to refuse to do business with a company that happened to have a major shareholder or board member of a particular race or ethnicity but that it was illegal for a business to refuse to do business because of the race/ethnicity of some party holding a specified role ownership/management role within the target firm.

I think you are bypassing the issue the GP was addressing: You said the scenario described by the GGP was absurd. The GP provided a concrete example of that scenario.

GP was disputing your characterization of the example as absurd, nothing more.

You can always start with "more than 50% of shares held by $ETHNICITY", and if you notice that you have an effect you can slowly lower the limit to allow fewer and fewer $ETHNICITY shareholders.

If we’re talking globally then plenty of examples of that exist right now.

I don’t know your gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin, but I can guarantee someone you’re going to have issues doing business because of discrimination. Saying X in not an issue in a country where X is protected/prohibited/regulated etc is a very week argument for getting rid of the associated laws.