Way way back they WERE all racist railways. And they more likely would have lost money and or been attacked and burned out if they allowed the races to mix on their rail cars.
What if the business refused to rent the hall for inter racial marriages? Or they didn’t want to serve Catholics? No dogs or Irish allowed, as the signs used to read.
This is getting rather old with you only willing to ask questions, but not answer them.
My position is pretty clear by now, and if you can’t deduce the answer to identical questions from the previous iterations we’re going to be here all week.
But to address your first paragraph, because they were all racist at the time, no such law could ever have been passed or enforced so it’s pretty moot. You might want to look into Reconstruction and what a debacle it was.
I’ll just have to assume you’re OK with a Catholic having to host gay wedding receptions since you’re so focused on dodging an answer.
(See Thomas Sowell's discussion of the matter in a 2005 townhall.com column.)
For my own part in the legislation defining "public accomodations" I would draw a distinction between bed-and-breakfast accommodations in which the owners are renting parts of their own home (or its grounds for receptions) and those in which the area rented to the public is not part of their residence or its grounds, applying non-discrimination laws to the latter, and offering maximum latitude to the proprietors' freedom of association in the former. (Similarly for church owned halls -- if the hall is on the same property as the parish and used for religious purposes at all, freedom of association should apply, while if it's down the block and only used for rentals, it's a public accommodation.)