You're literally just describing several decades of established interstate commerce case law. In an interconnected, modern society, wholly intrastate commerce

You're literally just describing several decades of established interstate commerce case law. In an interconnected, modern society, wholly intrastate commerce is a very, very, rare thing. It's almost impossible for retail to be wholly intrastate except for de minimis sales by itinerant merchants, as most supplies used in manufacture will have crossed state boundaries (but the courts do recognize when such commerce occurs and is excluded from the purview of federal regulation). Service is more easily constrained to the intrastate level, since local regulation of services has always been a local power. But yes, in the aggregate discrimination can have interstate effects. Indeed, there is a fair amount of federal civil rights legislation or case law that is predicated on, and requires, aggregate discrimination in order to apply at the local level because isolated incidents don't give rise to federal jurisdiction. I'm of the personal opinion that the discriminatory issues addressed in the civil rights act should have been clearly codified/amended in the constitution to unquestionably seal the federal power to address them. Literally, the last phrase of the 14th Amendment. But note that job title isn't a protected class under federal law, which is rayiner's point. And they aren't generally needed, since there are a number of state/local laws which make MSG's actions illegal. MSG doesn't simply risk fines, they risk the loss of their liquor license, their tax exemption, bookings from artists that don't want to be associated with the wanton use of facial recognition, and numerous tort lawsuits for excluding people with valid tickets.