85 years ago such policies existed in Europe with Jews instead of Asians as the target, in the current climate you might instead substitute "Asian" with "Chinese". The race doesn't really matter, it's the concept that matters.
You are missing the point. Your logic means no business can refuse to deal with any public company, because any company of any size has a(n) $ETHNICITY shareholder.
> Your logic means no business can refuse to deal with any public company, because any company of any size has a(n) $ETHNICITY shareholder.
No, nothing offered upthread suggested that. First of all because it didn't refer to merely having a shareholder of a particular ethnicity, but more critically because it didn't suggest it was illegal to refuse to do business with a company that happened to have a major shareholder or board member of a particular race or ethnicity but that it was illegal for a business to refuse to do business because of the race/ethnicity of some party holding a specified role ownership/management role within the target firm.
I think you are bypassing the issue the GP was addressing: You said the scenario described by the GGP was absurd. The GP provided a concrete example of that scenario.
GP was disputing your characterization of the example as absurd, nothing more.
You can always start with "more than 50% of shares held by $ETHNICITY", and if you notice that you have an effect you can slowly lower the limit to allow fewer and fewer $ETHNICITY shareholders.
If we’re talking globally then plenty of examples of that exist right now.
I don’t know your gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin, but I can guarantee someone you’re going to have issues doing business because of discrimination. Saying X in not an issue in a country where X is protected/prohibited/regulated etc is a very week argument for getting rid of the associated laws.
