But he is allowed to do that - as I informed you, my neighbors do exactly that, in perfect legality.
Meanwhile, my neighbors are not allowed to deny black people their basic civil rights and freedoms, because that would violate the liberal principle of equal rights and freedoms under the law. So in any commercial dealings with the public they have to treat black and white people the same, as we have found that otherwise black people are denied some of those rights and freedoms in the region as a whole. It's a fact of the US situation.
This sounds completely confused. But let's try to clarify. There is, in the US, some status, let't name it "public slave", where you are obliged to serve everybody, and can be punished for refusing to serve without valid reasons. This state you enter volitionally, by an own decision, not? If you, instead, simply use private freedom of contract, as a private person, without deciding to "serve the public", only with all whites who want to make contracts with you, but not signing any contract with blacks, what is the problem? As far as I have understood, once you serve all the whites, you are classified as "serving the public" even without your explicit decision to serve it. Not? If this is the case, there is no decision to serve the public, thus, if you are forced to serve, being classified as "public servant" against you free will, you are a slave.
You have possibilities to avoid this classification. By not making any contracts at all. But you have no possibility to serve all whites, but not being classified as a "public slave". Not?
Don't forget, the information I have about US law is from your/billvon side, not from studying actual US law. If the result is contradicting chaos, this is mainly your fault, once you seem unable to present the law in a non-contradictory way.
You made a silly mistake. Whether it makes you feel stupid is none of my business, or interest.
Really? You have made just a stupid "you are stupid" claim: " this bogus "signing" language of yours blinds you to physical reality ..." In your fantasy, this may be sufficient to prove a silly mistake on my side. In reality, it is simply a claim without any supporting evidence.
You don't. That's not how the law is written or enforced.
But if you don't give reasons at all, you may be punished. For not having the
valid reasons. Or for rejecting with
invalid reasons - even if one does not give reasons at all.
Whatever, I can leave the question open if this confusion about what one is obliged to do and what not is a result of your own confusion, an intentional method to hide the contradictions in your own position, or a real uncertainty in the law. The last would be the most dangerous for the US, because uncertain law is even more dangerous than simply bad law. One can follow a bad law, and, doing this, one is safe from persecution. With uncertain law, the situation is worse. Whatever you do, you may be persecuted, because you have no safe way to follow an imprecise law.
But, ok, there is also the variant that you don't have to give any reasons, and what you tell about your reasons is anyway irrelevant. Instead, the persecution, with its mind-reading abilities, can identify your evil reasons.