> We created laws, that I agree with, saying you can't ban whole protected classes like races from 'public accommodations' (private businesses that are generally open to the public)

The Supreme Court found these laws to be constitutional by finding them to be an application of Congress's power to regulate commerce. Congress can ban discrimination based on protected characteristics because such discrimination negatively affects commerce.

That same reasoning permits Congress to ban discrimination based on other factors, so long as it has a negative impact on commerce. For example, if operators of popular public accommodations try to evade legal liability by banning law firms who sue them from their property, such evasion can be said to have a negative impact on the economy. The commerce power is very broad, and it seems pretty easy to make an economic case against such practices.

That may very well be so, but you've not mentioned how or what that case would be. For example, how does it prevent a law case, or liability, if said lawyers can't visit the property.

One could say the same thing about the inside of my home, or being on my land. No I don't have to let a lawyer in or around my land, but they can get a court order (with sufficient evidence).

I'm not going to expect you to lay out the legal reasoning, because I know you were making a point, and we don't all have time to spend hours firming up that point for an internet comment. But at the same time, I'm just saying, I don't see the way it's impacting the economy with a small collection of lawyers.

The unfortunate thing here is, most judges used to be lawyers, and of course lawyers arguing the case would be ... lawyers. So to get a truly impartial case, we'd almost need non-judges and non-lawyers to handle this case start to end.