Agreed. If Charter said "too few of our customers will pay for this channel, it's not worth it to us", then they're within their rights. They shot themselves in

Agreed. If Charter said "too few of our customers will pay for this channel, it's not worth it to us", then they're within their rights. They shot themselves in the foot by having a VP of programming make racist comments to protestors. If those racist comments are found to be evidence that they also refused to carry the channel for race-related reasons, then they've got a problem. If the two facts are unrelated, then they don't. I wonder what happens if some emails are found during discovery that say "only X% of our customers are African-American, and X is less than our threshold for whether a channel will be profitable for us"? I suspect that would be an illegal reason, as, of course, customers of any race might be interested in this channel.