If that&#x27;s the only alternative to what&#x27;s happening today, yes.<p>It&#x27;s not a practical solution, because there are many reasons a supplier might not want a particular piece of business, some of which are not harmful (lack of resources, customer with dubious credit, etc).  But the arrogance of prejudging the law is very dangerous to free expression, especially when the vendor is a monopolist or oligopolist, as is the case with CAs.  That danger is multiplied further when the scope of the judgment is widened beyond whether the vendor&#x27;s (always overly conservative) lawyers suggest the company might be liable as a criminal accomplice if it accepted the business.  It&#x27;s becoming quite common for corporations to refuse to serve any customer, or to employ any person, that is not 100% inoffensive to 100% of the population.  The slightest hint of controversy or any public (or often, sadly, private) statement that falls outside the Overton Window will result in being cut off.  If you ask a corporate lawyer whether serving a particular customer is risky, you will always be told <i>yes</i>, no matter who it is.  So allowing their involvement in that decision is problematic, regardless of the nominal reason offered for turning away business.<p>I don&#x27;t know whether that&#x27;s what happened here, because we don&#x27;t have any kind of announcement, just an anecdote and some supposition.  But I would be willing to take some pretty strong measures to make sure it can&#x27;t.  Extending common-carrier status to CAs would be a very modest and narrow place to start, but I would take this much farther, to the very outer edge of what&#x27;s practical.  The world is a horribly stifling place as it is; we don&#x27;t need corporations contributing to the problem, especially since they are ill-equipped to determine whether something is illegal and will invariably default to the most conservative position.