Couldn't this happen with the exclusion thing....as an example, say Mormons or Jews or Muslims had hotels that only rented rooms to their own. Assume they also had other hotels for everyone else. Assume they charged a lot less and gave a lot more services and extras in "their" hotels, subsidized by the outsider's hotels.
Wouldn't this law allow for that?
In American society today, outright separate but equal treatment wouldn’t be allowed. However, if someone has a genuine religious objection to a deviant lifestyle like homosexuality, they should have the right to refuse service to those people.
*********
If the dress restrictions are legally enforceable at all....
...BY THE BUSINESS OWNER & STAFF...
Then OWNER (ALREADY) has the freedom to "discriminate" (be selective of clientele)--
.. To accept offers of business & purchase as OWNER sees fit.
No one can sue him....
or--
Sic the Gestapo govt regulators on him for exercising his own conscience in private business decisions.
**********
The current "push" to force biz owners to surrender these liberties, comports with a thinly-veiled militant anti-freedom agenda...
IOW--
The gay militants /same-sex marriage crowd want to enforce their will on business owners under the color of law--regardless of the owners conscience.
Sorry to disagree....
.....but that is NOT the American way.
It's the fascist way...
After the Washington State lawsuits/regulatory "wedding" enforcement...against florists & bakeries...
Arizona, Ohio, Tennessee, et als....
Are quirte right to listen to their constituents---
Passing shielding legislation