I don't want to dictate a private business' requirements. If a business wants everyone inside to be masked, they can say so. If a private business only wants to cater to whites, blacks, or members of a religion, sure. If a private business says all women who enter have to wear diapers, I don't really care.

.

But this is dependent on government staying out of it. If businesses require something pushed by any government entity that isn't a law, there is a problem. This isn't the only case-often stores have "no guns allowed" signs because they're renting from city-run plazas that require it for insurance or other government-pushed reasons, making carrying a firearm effectively illegal without making it directly illegal.

.

Government shouldn't direct businesses. If businesses conflict with our rights because government's hands are in the cookie jar, businesses ethically lose some of that protection. It is only when businesses independently conflict with our rights that "love and let live" can apply. Furthermore, it may possibly be a case to make that rather than using businesses as proxies to push mandates, government may have a role in reigning businesses if they collectively restrict a right.

.

For instance, if having a firearm anywhere is impossible because it is perfectly legal, yet almost universally unallowed by individual businesses, it may be a discussion that government-rather than engineering this scenario-has a role in doing g the opposite and breaking it up. But that there is only an idea, not something I necessarily think is right.

Right is right, wrong is wrong. The public is requiring companies to deliver WHAT services? Any business thrives or dies according to how well it meets the needs and desires of the public who buy their wares.

You are conflating government interference with satisfying public needs and / or wants. You might want to rethink your comments.