How about a clothing store that doesn’t sell larger sizes?
Now the refused party also has the right to stand out on my sidewalk and protest my practices and hurt my bottom line by steering potential customers away. But the refused party SHOULD NOT have the ability to seek the force of government to force me to change my service policies.
It isn’t an analogy I would choose to use. If they didn’t normally carry a particular item and they said, “this is what we have” (take it or leave it) there would be no equivalency. If they didn’t normally carry a particular item but offered special ordering options - but not to a particular customer - it could be interpreted as discrimination (not to me). The way I see it the analogy has too many flaws to be useful.
Let’s look at it another way.
There have been reports of muslim cab drivers who refuse to pick up passengers who have been drinking (but not drunk), or have animals (including service animals) even though there is no prohibition or company policy against either circumstance. The drivers were clearly discriminating. They haven’t been subjected to the same harassment and malicious prosecution that the Washington florist has. I think that this is a more apt analogy for this new reverse-discrimination.
How about a clothing store that doesn’t sell larger sizes?
Sign in the window “sorry we dont carry Hillary sizes our largest size is what we refer to as the Sarah size