It’s arguable that that is a fine on allowed behavior.
Consider somone charging 10,000$ per month rent, but giving white people a 9,000$ discount would clearly be illegal.
Consider somone charging 10,000$ per month rent, but giving white people a 9,000$ discount would clearly be illegal.
The Supreme Court has construed this preemption pretty broadly, but always in the context of contract enforcement or validity.
I can indeed imagine that the Supreme Court would write disapprovingly about the tactic of using a financial incentive to discourage forced arbitration clauses, but that's very different from whether they'd go beyond that to actually strike down the tax credit, since the arbitration clauses would remain fully valid and enforceable either way.
As a matter of realpolitik, it matters that the tax hike in my idea is explicitly severable from the offsetting tax cut: most of the judges and ideologically related advocates who like forced arbitration also dislike higher corporate taxes. The only thing they could credibly do against this law would result in higher corporate taxes. A separately severable tax hike conducted in accordance with state law is clearly constitutional.
Aka, Charging X more is equivalent to giving everyone !X a discount while excluding X from the standard discount.
And again, discrimination is not the point, the point was discounts is not a way to get around charging X more. If a state can’t charge a fine for doing X the also can’t give a discount for not doing X.