In reply to birdseye
Are you saying that all black Americans fits one or more of all the hypotheticals you postulated?
I'm saying that the woman, as a small business owner without any degree of monopoly power, i.e., she controls only a very small part of the market, should have the right to discriminate on whatever grounds she likes. Whether her subjective beliefs accord with objective reality is a secondary consideration.
You may treat the individual differently, but not the whole population
The woman does not have a crystal ball. By the time she encounters the problem customer, it's too late. The stress/inconvenience/expense of the situation will have to be incurred. Denying service to any group perceived as more high-risk in terms of potential costs is effectively a form of insurance. Which brings us to the cost of such insurance. If banning black Americans doesn't involve the woman in losing much or indeed any business (because her property is otherwise in healthy demand), her decision could be said to be eminently reasonable. The only losers in this situation might thought to be the blameless black Americans who miss out on the benefits of a nice holiday - they will, at least, continue to have myriad other options. If members of this group feel aggrieved, they might do better to vent their displeasure on offending members of their group than target an individual simply trying to provide for herself.
.if one member of a soccer team is consistently late for practice, you dont discipline the whole team, well maybe you would.
Here you have experience of the individuals involved and can form a judgement as to their character. Someone renting out their cottage won't know potential new customers from Adam. Business owners are not mysteriously omniscient - they don't possess perfect information about the present, let alone the future. Risk management is central to their decision making.
Consider the case of a lady massuese who offers home visits, but only to females, on the basis that she fears harassment or worse from male clients. It might be, objectively speaking, that her fears are exaggerated and only, say, 1 in a 100 men would present a problem of any kind. The risk involved, however, could be thought great - she could be molested or even murdered. Would you support her right to discriminate against all men?