Alright, well let me ask then: if they did do that, as part of the process of determining if they were going to take on a client, would you find that acceptable? If not, then you’ve set up something of a false equivalency there.
There is no such implication. That is a logical non-sequitur. They are not “at fault” for attempting to do business with someone who does not want to do business with them any more than a guy is “at fault” if he asks a girl out on a date and she doesn’t want to go out with him.
You confuse state and private actors. Jim Crow laws - where the state mandated a behavior - were as much an “abomination” as civil rights laws were, and in 1955, the tide was turned on dismantling the state-actor segregation. The Civil Rights Act passed, ten years later, because the tide was already turning at that point. The CRA simply replaced one abominable enforcement of morals with a different set.
