> No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like ... That's actually already tr

> No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like ... That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Man, the U.S. is a weird place. In Finland, for example, banks are forced to provide basic banking services to everyone, because access to basic banking services is considered to be more important than freedom of association. (I tried to look up if we have a similar law that prevents grocery stores from blacklisting customers, but I didn't find anything.) > Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific types of customers should be barred from buying food from anyone and should literally starve to death". That's a strawman position that you invented. In Finland there are 3 large grocery chains. If you were banned from all three, it would be difficult for you to access food. Could you still ask a friend to buy food for you? Sure. Could you still access food by stealing it? Sure. But on a spectrum between "buy food from the supermarket" and "starve to death", this position is closer to the "starve" end of the spectrum.