renaissance poisson

I agree -- mostly. (For what it's worth, Chik-Fil-A is definitely not in the "not gaining enough by being open on Sundays" category -- though there is an interesting sidetrack down the fact that they might well be in a position of either having to either close on Sunday or else have people working on Sunday who would prefer not to for religious reasons but don't feel they can afford not to, simply because if one takes the "prefer not to for religious reasons" people out, there aren't enough left to mind the store.)

The main reason for my last paragraph was not to say that there were no such reasons, merely that I hadn't thought of any that convinced me. Yours is definitely part of one, I think -- though "all the legal services that can be provided" is (obviously) absurd if one doesn't put a category-limit on it, and I'm not completely sure where the category limits ought to fall. For instance, is it appropriate for a drugstore to say, "we don't carry that drug because we only have room to stock the thousand most common ones"? Is there a standard complete list of drugs that most drugstores carry, that would form a reasonable basis for a requirement? (What if they happen to run out of something? I know drugstores do that on occasion, and while it's a difference of intent, it's not a difference in effect, and it's hard to legislate differences of intent rather than effect.)

I do think it's quite reasonable to legislate that a drugstore or chicken sandwich place cannot discriminate on whom it chooses to serve, though, and must provide the same services to everyone. (With said legislation likely needing reasonable exemptions to allow shopkeepers to tell genuinely obnoxious people to get out of their store, without their having to fill out paperwork documenting the obnoxiousness.) And for the cases where it is specific discrimination such as only providing birth control medication to married people, I think it's fairly clearly wrong.