If a seller can't deny service then it's not free. If a buyer can't buy what's offered it's not free.
There is no conflict. It is free Enterprise in action. a business that limitS its clientele, limites it's own profit, and all businesses is profit driven.
There's a logic failure there. A free market allows the buyer to go somewhere else to get what he wants or needs; he's not locked into a single supplier. Now, if the economy were centrally controlled, a service denial would have to be regulated out of existence. A very bad plan, to my mind.
And to go further, if there is a market to be tapped, another supplier has a ready clientele Base waiting. that is a business opportunity.
Ah. So the problem really stems from Jim Crow laws. That was a legislated denial of service. If they had been willing to give that up, perhaps the free market could have resolved it over time.
And what the Market needed were de-facto Jim Crow style laws, to privilege one class of people over other classes of people...that makes sense. One conundrum is that when people are working as a government employee, say, working in a community health clinic and are providing a government service that doesn't fall within the private economic football field model, does the unreasonable restraint of trade argument of the free market still justify "religious" folks reliance on"Exercise of Freedom of Religion" legislation and the 1st Ammendment to trump the 14th Ammendment protection of protected persons?
" If a seller can't deny service then it's not free. If a buyer can't buy what's offered it's not free." The perfect answer. No one should be forced to do business with anyone else, for any reason. Liberty is far too much for some to handle much less digest. jim