Yup, constitutionally protected classes, of which LGBTQ -- which you seem to specifically target -- is not. Surprise, private companies can refuse service to members of that group, absent specific anti-discrimination laws. Employees are protected, via the CRA of 1964, from termination on the sole basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. See, Bostock v. Clayton Co., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). However, the Court punted, in the business' favor, when asked to rule on whether a business could deny services to same-sex couples on a religious basis. See, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm., 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018). Given the new composition of the Court, I suspect they will soon take another case asking that question and rule in the business' favor.
If you're going to make legal arguments, at least get them right.
private companies can deny service to anyone... except A,B,C... LGBTQ ... X,Y,Z
Yup, constitutionally protected classes, of which LGBTQ -- which you seem to specifically target -- is not. Surprise, private companies can refuse service to members of that group, absent specific anti-discrimination laws. Employees are protected, via the CRA of 1964, from termination on the sole basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. See, Bostock v. Clayton Co., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). However, the Court punted, in the business' favor, when asked to rule on whether a business could deny services to same-sex couples on a religious basis. See, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm., 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018). Given the new composition of the Court, I suspect they will soon take another case asking that question and rule in the business' favor.
If you're going to make legal arguments, at least get them right.