> someone holding themselves out as a business does not have the right to arbitrarily refuse service to anyone
Sorry, but with respect: you misunderstand the Civil Rights Act and its peer legislature.
CRA and its peers carved out specific categories in which service, if provided at all, must be provided, more or less centered on intrinsic properties that do not impact or reflect the content of one's character. That carve-out is as exceptions to the default common law sense that any company may choose to refrain from doing business at any time. That's the bedrock and we make exceptions.
A cop was recently refused service at a bakery because they have a no open weapons policy (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4174109-san-francis...). "No shirts, no shoes, no service" is pretty bog-standard recognized restaurant boilerplate. In most states, bartenders can kick out someone who's dressed like a Nazi. And in HE's case, their terms of service refuse use of their services for illegal activity. In their opinion (and this could, perhaps, be tested in a court of law), this includes providing service to a company that is allowing illegal activity through its network and looking the other way ("data laundring," if you will).
You're right that green is green, and that generally serves as a practical counterweight for abuse of this privilege. But the privilege stands, and if a company decides the money isn't worth the loss to reputation or anything else they value, they may, with few carefully-carved exceptions, leave it on the table.
It's a high hill to climb to justify why we should stud these ground rules with an additional civil rights exception for the likes of KF. What societal benefit? Because it's pretty easy to see the content of their character, and their state of being isn't intrinsic to them and inextricable from their character ("just stop being cyberbullies").
Sorry, but with respect: you misunderstand the Civil Rights Act and its peer legislature.
CRA and its peers carved out specific categories in which service, if provided at all, must be provided, more or less centered on intrinsic properties that do not impact or reflect the content of one's character. That carve-out is as exceptions to the default common law sense that any company may choose to refrain from doing business at any time. That's the bedrock and we make exceptions.
A cop was recently refused service at a bakery because they have a no open weapons policy (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4174109-san-francis...). "No shirts, no shoes, no service" is pretty bog-standard recognized restaurant boilerplate. In most states, bartenders can kick out someone who's dressed like a Nazi. And in HE's case, their terms of service refuse use of their services for illegal activity. In their opinion (and this could, perhaps, be tested in a court of law), this includes providing service to a company that is allowing illegal activity through its network and looking the other way ("data laundring," if you will).
You're right that green is green, and that generally serves as a practical counterweight for abuse of this privilege. But the privilege stands, and if a company decides the money isn't worth the loss to reputation or anything else they value, they may, with few carefully-carved exceptions, leave it on the table.
It's a high hill to climb to justify why we should stud these ground rules with an additional civil rights exception for the likes of KF. What societal benefit? Because it's pretty easy to see the content of their character, and their state of being isn't intrinsic to them and inextricable from their character ("just stop being cyberbullies").