On the MMIWG thread, Pondering wrote...
The men have no connection to the communities. The community experiences it as an invasion of men. A better comparison would be communities that want to limit tourism as self-protection.
But if businesses in the affected communities were to put up signs saying WE DON'T SERVE MEN FROM THE LOCAL CAMPS, it would almost certainly be considered illegal discrimination.
So, how then is it more justifiable for the government to enforce laws preventing men from leaving the man camps? That's basically just doing on the macro level what the individual businesses were doing in the micro level, in my hypothetical.
And I don't think you can get around this by saying "Well, the men would sign contracts agreeing to stay on site, as a condition of employment." The only way any company would make that part of a contract is if the government required it, so we're still back to the state mandating gender segregation.
And as for your tourism comparison, a community can choose not to promote itself as a tourist destination, certainly. Heck, individual residents can even be as cold and unfriendly as they want to outsiders, on an informal basis. But I'm pretty sure the law would not uphold their right to legally prevent non-residents from entering the city, town, or neighbourhood.
