I suppose I'm still not conveying my point (or I'm misunderstanding the points of others).
Either way (pro-quartering/speech or anti-quartering/speech) a business has no impact on those rights. A business can't decide to quarter soldiers in your house. A business can't "restrict" free speech (unless that business is a complete monopoly in that market, a separate issue) as a user can easily find another registrar or start their own registrar to meet their needs.
Put another way, if your local theater won't allow you to show "Triumph of the Will", that's not a restriction on your speech, because you can start your own theater.
>Put another way, if your local theater won't allow you to show "Triumph of the Will", that's not a restriction on your speech, because you can start your own theater.
Legally we agree, but I can also choose to not support those businesses.
Countering your hypothetical with another hypothetical:
How would you feel if Twitter decided to ban all people of color from being able to use the platform?
Is that something you're totally cool with, because companies can't possibly affect your rights to free exercise of speech, or is it something you'd prefer they not do?
Given the option I'd pick them over a alternative.