[vmception]

Just because something hasn't been challenged doesn't mean it is legal and the ongoing existence of a counterpoint is not a strong argument regarding legal review.

And the more obvious difference to me is that your example is not providing housing and is not providing education.

There are really two questions here, the first being is it legal, and the second being is this what we want whether it is currently legal or currently illegal? If the answer to the second question is "yes" then carry on. To me it currently seems incompatible, and I am still trying to understand what the current consensus is. I don't have strong opinions on it, or much of anything, which is why I gravitate towards the legal field because - like lawyers - I can compartmentalize anything. So I am aiming to also understand the consensus on what people desire and if "safe spaces" are the most productive approach to getting there.

[MyHypatia]

Ok, some other examples include:

-Seminaries and monasteries that only house and educate men.

-Women's colleges that only house and educate women.

-Homeless and domestic violence shelters that only house men or women.

-All-boys and all-girls schools that only educate boys or girls.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is "good" or "bad". I'm just pointing out that there are many examples though out the United States. So your statement that "the bay area is rebranding separate but equal" just doesn't make any sense when this is common in various forms throughout the entire United States.

[mensetmanusman]

People have the freedom to hang out with who they want?

[vmception]

With some limitations on housing, education, and employment.

The question is whether those limitations apply here.

[mensetmanusman]

People have the freedom to sleep, learn, and work with who they want?

(It’s interesting to consider when this isn’t true in the US from a philosophical point of view)