Clear. Now, how does that relate to the Cloudflare example? They claim they did not terminate service due to holding an ideology, which you argue should be a protected class, they terminated based on disruptive action. It could be argued that this particular termination (or really, any termination) was a pretense for discrimination (but I doubt any judge would agree, and that's why these companies don't face endless litigation already). It's the right of the business to terminate when they feel it's in their best interests and argue for it if challenged on grounds of discrimination. Why don't they deserve this right?

[Linked Image]