No, he isn't a "private employer" (unless it is a sole or joint properitorship).
He runs a corporation, which means it works under special rules set by the state. In exhange, he gets several PRIVLIDGES granted by the state, which include limited liability and so on. In exhange for these privlidges, he should be regulated by the state in such a manner that protects indiviudal Rights in this country.
Corporations have no Rights, only privlidges granted by the state.
I'm not familiar with Michigan law.
"Corporations have no Rights"
Does IBM have the right to tell employees what to wear? Maybe this is matter of semantics.
I stand by my opinion (whether it applies in this particular circumstance or not), regarding the rights of private employers.
Just because a corporation is set up in accordance with certain laws does not make it a public entity.
In exhange for these privlidges, he should be regulated by the state in such a manner that protects indiviudal Rights in this country.
Ah, I see. I'll put you down as being in favor of more governmental regulation of business.