Logically “civil rights protection” should be limited to immutable characteristics. One probably should have the right to refuse to hire based on religion. I can imagine a number of scenarios where it would be completely insane to force one person to hire another. Having made the mistake of adding “religion” it’s gonna be hard to argue against trannies.
The disingenuous “religion” addition to the CRA was just included to make the bitter medicine of the core intent of the mandate go down a little easier. It was NEVER intended to be enforced, especially in favor of Christianity.
That said, I think it’s illogical to accept ANY of the “protections” (what an Orwellian term) promoted by the CRA, including religion. We are either free to make decisions with our own property (businesses, homes, speech, real property, etc.) or we are not.
Except that civil rights protection is entirely unconstitutional in the first place. Nothing in the US Constitution prohibits a private employer from discriminating on ANY basis. The constitution was only written to limit the powers of government. It wasn’t designed to force private citizen to associate against their will, so-called public accomodations notwithstanding, with other citizens.
By attempting to amend the constitution via legislation and SCOTUS rulings, the government created the mess of competing rights that we now have. Whose rights are supreme here? LGBT employment rights or religious freedom. At least religious freedom is a constitutionally enumerated freedom in the Bill of Rights.
The only way to truly solve this problem is to return to an original understanding of constitutional rights. People have the right to associate with whoever they want and run their private property, including their businesses, as they see fit.
BTW, I think the goal of civil rights legislation was admirable. I just think the leaders at that time created a bigger mess by trying to fix discrimination via unconstitutional means rather than letting the culture evolve over time.