Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

[Des-Bal]

Discrimination ought to be ok because muh rights got it. Anyone whose denied a loan or service in a store should just say ok and walk out.

Yes you've gotten the gist of it, you should be allowed to choose who you do and do not enter into a contract with but you've "gotten" this like a dozen times and then gone back to asking the same answered questions and being confused by the same points right away.

If you been denied a good or service you should handle it the way people handle being denied a good or service for any other reason.

[Ors Might]

I guess this means you are going to list every single individual discriminatory practice instead of extrapolating.

I think it's as acceptable to force a person to give a loan they don't want to a it is to force someone to take a loan they don't want to.

Why did you call it discriminatory? I thought you have said its perfectly acceptable because of freedom of association or something like that

Are you seriously going to suggest that one should be forced to give loans to those that can’t pay them back?

No I am not

Here is a comprehensive look at redlining; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

From what I’m seeing, redlining is essentially denying loans to poorer communities through a variety of ways, like raising the costs. Sometimes this is also done along racial lines. Not something I would call ethical or moral but not something that I would make illegal. It does make a cold sort of logic to not want to give loans to people you think won’t be able to pay back. Banks rely on those they give loans to being able to pay back the interest.

[San Lumen]

Discrimination ought to be ok because muh rights got it. Anyone whose denied a loan or service in a store should just say ok and walk out.

Yes you've gotten the gist of it, you should be allowed to choose who you do and do not enter into a contract with but you've "gotten" this like a dozen times and then gone back to asking the same answered questions and being confused by the same points right away.

If you been denied a good or service you should handle it the way people handle being denied a good or service for any other reason.

Just because I get it doesnt mean I think its right. Say we create this right to discriminate and a employee at a restaurant doesnt agree with the new policy and serves a black couple or gay couple? Should they be fired because they disagree with the owners policy own just find a new job?

Why did you call it discriminatory? I thought you have said its perfectly acceptable because of freedom of association or something like that

No I am not

Here is a comprehensive look at redlining; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

From what I’m seeing, redlining is essentially denying loans to poorer communities through a variety of ways, like raising the costs. Sometimes this is also done along racial lines. Not something I would call ethical or moral but not something that I would make illegal. It does make a cold sort of logic to not want to give loans to people you think won’t be able to pay back. Banks rely on those they give loans to being able to pay back the interest.

That denial of loans was done because of racism not because they didnt think they could pay the loans back.

[Ors Might]

Yes you've gotten the gist of it, you should be allowed to choose who you do and do not enter into a contract with but you've "gotten" this like a dozen times and then gone back to asking the same answered questions and being confused by the same points right away.

If you been denied a good or service you should handle it the way people handle being denied a good or service for any other reason.

Just because I get it doesnt mean I think its right. Say we create this right to discriminate and a employee at a restaurant doesnt agree with the new policy and serves a black couple or gay couple? Should they be fired because they disagree with the owners policy own just find a new job?

From what I’m seeing, redlining is essentially denying loans to poorer communities through a variety of ways, like raising the costs. Sometimes this is also done along racial lines. Not something I would call ethical or moral but not something that I would make illegal. It does make a cold sort of logic to not want to give loans to people you think won’t be able to pay back. Banks rely on those they give loans to being able to pay back the interest.

That denial of loans was done because of racism not because they didnt think they could pay the loans back.

You have transcripts of their thoughts just lying around? Poverty and race often overlap in the U.S for obvious reasons.

[Des-Bal]

Just because I get it doesnt mean I think its right. Say we create this right to discriminate and a employee at a restaurant doesnt agree with the new policy and serves a black couple or gay couple? Should they be fired because they disagree with the owners policy own just find a new job?

That denial of loans was done because of racism not because they didnt think they could pay the loans back.

"Getting it" generally precludes "repeatedly asking the same questions." On that note you're once again asking the wrong question. If they're fired they should find new jobs or live in the mountaina like weirdos I don't care what they decide to do. Owners can have policies their employees disagree with, they can refuse to serve customers and the only reason you imagine these to be different is because the law sometimes treats them as special.

The word "Redlining" actually refers to the process of breaking down neighborhoods with outlines colored to reflect how well investments are likely to pay off.

[Estanglia]

I guess this means you are going to list every single individual discriminatory practice instead of extrapolating.

I think it's as acceptable to force a person to give a loan they don't want to a it is to force someone to take a loan they don't want to.

Why did you call it discriminatory? I thought you have said its perfectly acceptable because of freedom of association or something like that

Something can be discriminatory and legal.

I didn't say it was acceptable I said it should be legal and discriminatory isn't a synonym for illegal.

Discrimination ought to be ok because muh rights got it.

Is there something wrong with not having your rights violated?

Anyone whose denied a loan or service in a store should just say ok and walk out.

You keep on repeating these points as if they prove something.

Yes you've gotten the gist of it, you should be allowed to choose who you do and do not enter into a contract with but you've "gotten" this like a dozen times and then gone back to asking the same answered questions and being confused by the same points right away.

If you been denied a good or service you should handle it the way people handle being denied a good or service for any other reason.

Just because I get it doesnt mean I think its right. Say we create this right to discriminate and a employee at a restaurant doesnt agree with the new policy and serves a black couple or gay couple? Should they be fired because they disagree with the owners policy own just find a new job?

If the owner wants to fire them...

From what I’m seeing, redlining is essentially denying loans to poorer communities through a variety of ways, like raising the costs. Sometimes this is also done along racial lines. Not something I would call ethical or moral but not something that I would make illegal. It does make a cold sort of logic to not want to give loans to people you think won’t be able to pay back. Banks rely on those they give loans to being able to pay back the interest.

That denial of loans was done because of racism not because they didnt think they could pay the loans back.

Are you a time-travelling mind reader to know that poverty wasn't a factor?

[Des-Bal]

Are you a time-travelling mind reader to know that poverty wasn't a factor?

To be clear, actual redlining involved circling shitty neighborhoods but there was indisputably also a great deal of racism.

[San Lumen]

Just because I get it doesnt mean I think its right. Say we create this right to discriminate and a employee at a restaurant doesnt agree with the new policy and serves a black couple or gay couple? Should they be fired because they disagree with the owners policy own just find a new job?

"Getting it" generally precludes "repeatedly asking the same questions." On that note you're once again asking the wrong question. If they're fired they should find new jobs or live in the mountaina like weirdos I don't care what they decide to do. Owners can have policies their employees disagree with, they can refuse to serve customers and the only reason you imagine these to be different is because the law sometimes treats them as special.

The word "Redlining" actually refers to the process of breaking down neighborhoods with outlines colored to reflect how well investments are likely to pay off.

I do think anyone ought to be treated differently because of their skin color or sexual orientation and wonder if they are going to be treated equally.

You've seen many places that said they wouldn't serve certain groups and get massive donations to help keep them in business. I think that speaks volumes and as to what would happen if we decided to allow business to discriminate.

Are you a time-travelling mind reader to know that poverty wasn't a factor?

To be clear, actual redlining involved circling shitty neighborhoods but there was indisputably also a great deal of racism.

And why should we have allowed that to continue? Because muh rights?

[San Lumen]

Why did you call it discriminatory? I thought you have said its perfectly acceptable because of freedom of association or something like that

Something can be discriminatory and legal.

Discrimination ought to be ok because muh rights got it.

Is there something wrong with not having your rights violated?

Anyone whose denied a loan or service in a store should just say ok and walk out.

You keep on repeating these points as if they prove something.

Just because I get it doesnt mean I think its right. Say we create this right to discriminate and a employee at a restaurant doesnt agree with the new policy and serves a black couple or gay couple? Should they be fired because they disagree with the owners policy own just find a new job?

If the owner wants to fire them...

That denial of loans was done because of racism not because they didnt think they could pay the loans back.

Are you a time-travelling mind reader to know that poverty wasn't a factor?

If you are open to the public you serve all or none at all.

[Ors Might]

Something can be discriminatory and legal.



Is there something wrong with not having your rights violated?



You keep on repeating these points as if they prove something.



If the owner wants to fire them...



Are you a time-travelling mind reader to know that poverty wasn't a factor?

If you are open to the public you serve all or none at all.

So where are the laws against discriminating against people of a certain height or eye color?

[The Emerald Legion]

Something can be discriminatory and legal.



Is there something wrong with not having your rights violated?



You keep on repeating these points as if they prove something.



If the owner wants to fire them...



Are you a time-travelling mind reader to know that poverty wasn't a factor?

If you are open to the public you serve all or none at all.

And yet I can't walk up to a drive through window and order food.

I am, in that case, discriminated against for not driving a car.

And yet No shirt, no shoes, no service is still an acceptable policy.

And yet you can have exclusive clubs where you need a membership to do business.

[Des-Bal]

I do think anyone ought to be treated differently because of their skin color or sexual orientation and wonder if they are going to be treated equally.

You've seen many places that said they wouldn't serve certain groups and get massive donations to help keep them in business. I think that speaks volumes and as to what would happen if we decided to allow business to discriminate.


And why should we have allowed that to continue? Because muh rights?

I agree that people should be treated equally.

I've seen many places boycotted for the same thing. I am not concerned that if we allow discrimination that massive swaths of people will simply have nowhere to go. It is 100% legal to refuse to serve democrats and yet there aren't vast swaths of the population out in the cold because of right wing businesses.

Yes, that's the reason. Putting "muh" in front of something doesn't make it frivolous, you're talking about forcing someone to enter into a contract. It would be equally fair to force people in poorer neighborhoods to take loans.

[San Lumen]

If you are open to the public you serve all or none at all.

And yet I can't walk up to a drive through window and order food.

I am, in that case, discriminated against for not driving a car.

And yet No shirt, no shoes, no service is still an acceptable policy.

And yet you can have exclusive clubs where you need a membership to do business.

Because those policies apply to all regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.

I do think anyone ought to be treated differently because of their skin color or sexual orientation and wonder if they are going to be treated equally.

You've seen many places that said they wouldn't serve certain groups and get massive donations to help keep them in business. I think that speaks volumes and as to what would happen if we decided to allow business to discriminate.


And why should we have allowed that to continue? Because muh rights?

I agree that people should be treated equally.

I've seen many places boycotted for the same thing. I am not concerned that if we allow discrimination that massive swaths of people will simply have nowhere to go. It is 100% legal to refuse to serve democrats and yet there aren't vast swaths of the population out in the cold because of right wing businesses.

Yes, that's the reason. Putting "muh" in front of something doesn't make it frivolous, you're talking about forcing someone to enter into a contract. It would be equally fair to force people in poorer neighborhoods to take loans.

Then why shouldn't we ensure that by banning picking and choose who you serve?

And who is going to ask what party someone supports before serving them?

You might have whole towns in the south or midwest where someone has no store they can shop at because its the only one in town.

Yet I can't think of a example where a boycott closed a business.

Those policies created segregated communities and even though the policy of redlining is no longer allowed the effects of it remain.

[Des-Bal]

Then why shouldn't we ensure that by banning picking and choose who you serve?

And who is going to ask what party someone supports before serving them?

You might have whole towns in the south or midwest where someone has no store they can shop at because its the only one in town.

Yet I can't think of a example where a boycott closed a business.

Those policies created segregated communities and even though the policy of redlining is no longer allowed the effects of it remain.

Because it involves wielding the state's monopoly on violence to force people into contracts they don't wish to enter.

The same people who are asking if you're gay.

There are areas in the south and midwest where someone has no store they can shop at because there are no stores there. Either figure something out or live somewhere else.

I can't think of an example where a population starved to death because nobody wanted to serve them.

Aw so sad. Doesn't matter though.

[The Emerald Legion]

And yet I can't walk up to a drive through window and order food.

I am, in that case, discriminated against for not driving a car.

And yet No shirt, no shoes, no service is still an acceptable policy.

And yet you can have exclusive clubs where you need a membership to do business.

Because those policies apply to all regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.

I agree that people should be treated equally.

I've seen many places boycotted for the same thing. I am not concerned that if we allow discrimination that massive swaths of people will simply have nowhere to go. It is 100% legal to refuse to serve democrats and yet there aren't vast swaths of the population out in the cold because of right wing businesses.

Yes, that's the reason. Putting "muh" in front of something doesn't make it frivolous, you're talking about forcing someone to enter into a contract. It would be equally fair to force people in poorer neighborhoods to take loans.

Then why shouldn't we ensure that by banning picking and choose who you serve?

And who is going to ask what party someone supports before serving them?

You might have whole towns in the south or midwest where someone has no store they can shop at because its the only one in town.

Yet I can't think of a example where a boycott closed a business.

Those policies created segregated communities and even though the policy of redlining is no longer allowed the effects of it remain.

And? You're still not serving the whole public.

Then frankly, the people should move. If they are really so hated that everyone nearby would rather see them die then make money doing business, they should leave. I say that regardless of why they're hated. Whether it's Because they broke the wrong person's heart, or because they're gay, or because they don't own a car.

[San Lumen]

Then why shouldn't we ensure that by banning picking and choose who you serve?

And who is going to ask what party someone supports before serving them?

You might have whole towns in the south or midwest where someone has no store they can shop at because its the only one in town.

Yet I can't think of a example where a boycott closed a business.

Those policies created segregated communities and even though the policy of redlining is no longer allowed the effects of it remain.

Because it involves wielding the state's monopoly on violence to force people into contracts they don't wish to enter.

The same people who are asking if you're gay.

There are areas in the south and midwest where someone has no store they can shop at because there are no stores there. Either figure something out or live somewhere else.

I can't think of an example where a population starved to death because nobody wanted to serve them.

Aw so sad. Doesn't matter though.

Too freaking bad. You dont have a right to be a bigot. If business have a right to discriminate does that mean people who are racist who get elected to office have a right to pass discriminatory laws?

Why should they have to move to go elsewhere because the story has a whites only policy?

No there isnt but it doesn't make discrimination ok .

It doesn't matter? Segregating communities or telling people you can't rent or buy a home in this town is ok? Those policies kept communities in poverty and are the reason many still are.

Because those policies apply to all regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.


Then why shouldn't we ensure that by banning picking and choose who you serve?

And who is going to ask what party someone supports before serving them?

You might have whole towns in the south or midwest where someone has no store they can shop at because its the only one in town.

Yet I can't think of a example where a boycott closed a business.

Those policies created segregated communities and even though the policy of redlining is no longer allowed the effects of it remain.

And? You're still not serving the whole public.

Then frankly, the people should move. If they are really so hated that everyone nearby would rather see them die then make money doing business, they should leave. I say that regardless of why they're hated. Whether it's Because they broke the wrong person's heart, or because they're gay, or because they don't own a car.

I already said its not a discriminatory policy because it applies to all

And moving isn't so easy for some people

[Elwher]

I believe that there are two separate issues here. Government entities should not be allowed to discriminate in hiring, promoting, or serving the populace on any of these classes, and that should include LGBT individuals. These are, in effect, owned by the people and need to treat all the people equally.

A private business is in a different category, and should be regulated differently. The owners are a distinct subset of the population, and as such, should have the right to make whatever decisions on their employee of customer base they wish. Obviously, decisions have consequences. If they exclude certain groups from working, they are cutting themselves off from the talent represented by that group; thereby making them a less efficient competitor in the market. If they exclude groups as customers, they are limiting their ability to expand their market share and someone else will take those customers and their profits. Not only that, there will be a social cost to such practices, as many will decline to patronize institutions that discriminate. However, if a private enterprise wishes to accept such costs, that should be their right.

[Des-Bal]

Too freaking bad. You dont have a right to be a bigot. If business have a right to discriminate does that mean people who are racist who get elected to office have a right to pass discriminatory laws?

Why should they have to move to go elsewhere because the story has a whites only policy?

No there isnt but it doesn't make discrimination ok .

It doesn't matter? Segregating communities or telling people you can't rent or buy a home in this town is ok? Those policies kept communities in poverty and are the reason many still are.

Yes you do actually have a right to be a bigot it would be absolutely insane if the government tried to legislate people's opinions. You're now talking about what the government does not private citizens, the government passing a discriminatory law would be actively taking away people's rights instead of declining to take away people's rights it's literally the opposite situation.

Why should they have to move to go elsewhere because the one store closed?

Sure it's not okay, go ahead and refuse to shop somewhere if they're discriminating. The fact that something's not okay doesn't mean the government needs to be involved.

Depends on whose doing the telling. If a private citizen doesn't want to sell you a home you shouldn't be able to force them. Why is it that when I tell you something doesn't matter you repeat it?

And moving isn't so easy for some people

Take that shit to someone who walked, bussed, and hitched their way across Mexico to enter the united states. People have been migrating to better territory since the fucking stone age.

[The Emerald Legion]

Because it involves wielding the state's monopoly on violence to force people into contracts they don't wish to enter.

The same people who are asking if you're gay.

There are areas in the south and midwest where someone has no store they can shop at because there are no stores there. Either figure something out or live somewhere else.

I can't think of an example where a population starved to death because nobody wanted to serve them.

Aw so sad. Doesn't matter though.

Too freaking bad. You dont have a right to be a bigot. If business have a right to discriminate does that mean people who are racist who get elected to office have a right to pass discriminatory laws?

Why should they have to move to go elsewhere because the story has a whites only policy?

No there isnt but it doesn't make discrimination ok .

It doesn't matter? Segregating communities or telling people you can't rent or buy a home in this town is ok? Those policies kept communities in poverty and are the reason many still are.

And? You're still not serving the whole public.

Then frankly, the people should move. If they are really so hated that everyone nearby would rather see them die then make money doing business, they should leave. I say that regardless of why they're hated. Whether it's Because they broke the wrong person's heart, or because they're gay, or because they don't own a car.

I already said its not a discriminatory policy because it applies to all

And moving isn't so easy for some people

"No Homosexuality" also applies to all. It just only has deleterious effects on those who are homosexual.

In the end you are effectively arguing for discrimination based on some traits (Poverty, Nudism) but not others, because culturally you find it acceptable to do so.

The whole point is saying that your culture should not be enforced by law, with violence, on other people.

In fact, you have every right to be a bigot. We have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of thought here in america. Not that being a bigot will win you friends or enable optimal decision-making.

[San Lumen]

Too freaking bad. You dont have a right to be a bigot. If business have a right to discriminate does that mean people who are racist who get elected to office have a right to pass discriminatory laws?

Why should they have to move to go elsewhere because the story has a whites only policy?

No there isnt but it doesn't make discrimination ok .

It doesn't matter? Segregating communities or telling people you can't rent or buy a home in this town is ok? Those policies kept communities in poverty and are the reason many still are.



I already said its not a discriminatory policy because it applies to all

And moving isn't so easy for some people

"No Homosexuality" also applies to all. It just only has deleterious effects on those who are homosexual.

In the end you are effectively arguing for discrimination based on some traits (Poverty, Nudism) but not others, because culturally you find it acceptable to do so.

The whole point is saying that your culture should not be enforced by law, with violence, on other people.

In fact, you have every right to be a bigot. We have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of thought here in america. Not that being a bigot will win you friends or enable optimal decision-making.

So the Civil Rights Act ought to be repealed in its entirely along with the Fair Housing Act along with every other non discrimination law?

[The Emerald Legion]

"No Homosexuality" also applies to all. It just only has deleterious effects on those who are homosexual.

In the end you are effectively arguing for discrimination based on some traits (Poverty, Nudism) but not others, because culturally you find it acceptable to do so.

The whole point is saying that your culture should not be enforced by law, with violence, on other people.

In fact, you have every right to be a bigot. We have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of thought here in america. Not that being a bigot will win you friends or enable optimal decision-making.

So the Civil Rights Act ought to be repealed in its entirely along with the Fair Housing Act along with every other non discrimination law?

Why should it be in it's entirety? Parts of these non discrimination laws enshrine non discrimination on the part of the government. Which is important.

The parts where you can force people to sell to people they don't like? Yeah those are dumb.

Just spend the money you would save ignoring that on providing basic government sponsored services. Food. Shelter. Etc.

[San Lumen]

So the Civil Rights Act ought to be repealed in its entirely along with the Fair Housing Act along with every other non discrimination law?

Why should it be in it's entirety? Parts of these non discrimination laws enshrine non discrimination on the part of the government. Which is important.

The parts where you can force people to sell to people they don't like? Yeah those are dumb.

Just spend the money you would save ignoring that on providing basic government sponsored services. Food. Shelter. Etc.

Why should the government not be able to but a business can?

You might think allowing business owners to pick and chose who they serve wouldn't affect many neither would it be a large number of business but i think you'd be surprised given all the racism documented since a certain person was elected.

If a bus company decided to bring back segregated buses should they have that right?

[Des-Bal]

Why should the government not be able to but a business can?

You might think allowing business owners to pick and chose who they serve wouldn't affect many neither would it be a large number of business but i think you'd be surprised given all the racism documented since a certain person was elected.

If a bus company decided to bring back segregated buses should they have that right?

Because private citizens have freedoms and governments restrict freedoms. It's the exact opposite situation.

Yeah how many democrats aren't being served?

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Why do you keep asking for individual examples after people have comprehensively told you what they are and are not okay with? You should also note that segregated buses, like most jim crow fixtures, were mandated by law. Private companies weren't necessarily fans of the policies because they were difficult to enforce.

[The Emerald Legion]

Why should it be in it's entirety? Parts of these non discrimination laws enshrine non discrimination on the part of the government. Which is important.

The parts where you can force people to sell to people they don't like? Yeah those are dumb.

Just spend the money you would save ignoring that on providing basic government sponsored services. Food. Shelter. Etc.

Why should the government not be able to but a business can?

You might think allowing business owners to pick and chose who they serve wouldn't affect many neither would it be a large number of business but i think you'd be surprised given all the racism documented since a certain person was elected.

If a bus company decided to bring back segregated buses should they have that right?

Because the governments purpose is to serve the people, some of whom are racial, religious, or sexual minorities.

A businesses purpose is to further it's owners interests. Usually this is by making money, but sometimes there are other goals. Either in addition to making money, or in place of.

It doesn't matter who it would effect.

What kind of backwater has bus companies? Buses are operated by the government around here.

[Estanglia]

Something can be discriminatory and legal.



Is there something wrong with not having your rights violated?



You keep on repeating these points as if they prove something.



If the owner wants to fire them...



Are you a time-travelling mind reader to know that poverty wasn't a factor?

If you are open to the public you serve all or none at all.

So why is there no law prohibiting discrimination for reasons like not having a car (when going through a drive through), height, eye colour, hair colour, clothing etc.?

There seems to be a lot of exceptions to 'serve all or none at all'. And why can't a public business choose its customers?

And yet I can't walk up to a drive through window and order food.

I am, in that case, discriminated against for not driving a car.

And yet No shirt, no shoes, no service is still an acceptable policy.

And yet you can have exclusive clubs where you need a membership to do business.

Because those policies apply to all regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.

And yet parts of the public aren't being served.

Because it involves wielding the state's monopoly on violence to force people into contracts they don't wish to enter.

The same people who are asking if you're gay.

There are areas in the south and midwest where someone has no store they can shop at because there are no stores there. Either figure something out or live somewhere else.

I can't think of an example where a population starved to death because nobody wanted to serve them.

Aw so sad. Doesn't matter though.

Too freaking bad. You dont have a right to be a bigot.

1) You do.
2) Why shouldn't we?

If business have a right to discriminate does that mean people who are racist who get elected to office have a right to pass discriminatory laws?

The Government and businesses are different things.

Why should they have to move to go elsewhere because the story has a whites only policy?

Why should they have to move to go elsewhere because the store closed down?

And? You're still not serving the whole public.

Then frankly, the people should move. If they are really so hated that everyone nearby would rather see them die then make money doing business, they should leave. I say that regardless of why they're hated. Whether it's Because they broke the wrong person's heart, or because they're gay, or because they don't own a car.

I already said its not a discriminatory policy because it applies to all

It is a discriminatory policy and it doesn't apply to all. A 'no blondes' rule doesn't apply to brown-haired people just like a 'no whites' policy doesn't apply to black people.

Or they do apply and 'no whites' isn't a discriminatory policy. Take your pick.

And moving isn't so easy for some people

So?

Why should it be in it's entirety? Parts of these non discrimination laws enshrine non discrimination on the part of the government. Which is important.

The parts where you can force people to sell to people they don't like? Yeah those are dumb.

Just spend the money you would save ignoring that on providing basic government sponsored services. Food. Shelter. Etc.

Why should the government not be able to but a business can?

Because there a big differences between the two.
A business is typically owned by a few people. The government is either owned by everyone or no one (depending on how you interpret it).
A business can collapse and competition can take its place without much changing. The government's collapse could be catastrophic.
A business can't force its competitors to be discriminatory via the law. The government can.

If a bus company decided to bring back segregated buses should they have that right?

It's their buses.