this is not enforcing vaccination it is denying services based on vaccination status. i think there is a distinction. like what if a state decided to make the franchise dependent on whether your were vaccinated or not in order to 'encourage' people to vaccinate similar to how they are trying to deny people access to indoor dining in order to 'encourage' people to vaccinate. i'm sure that would be challenged under the civil rights act. the key thing here is that if they wanted to increase vaccination rates it could be done in a more direct and narrow way like enforcing people to get vaccinated rather than doing it indirectly.

also, this case was not about the whether it was a breach of the civil rights act which is what i contend this law violates. in fact, the civil rights act was established after this case so it couldn't possibly have factored into the decision.