Tiassa obviously refuses to argue, and continues cheap polemics which are not worth to be answered. In a liberal society, a contract simply does not exist if it is refused. It starts to become a contract only after acceptance. Yes. But this presupposes a contract, an accepted one, and is about the question if the acceptance is valid. A contract which does not have even an invalid acceptance is not a contract at all. I think we are not lawyers here. If I say "signed", that means accepted by above sides, ok? As if this would change something. If this evidence is considered sufficient or not already does not depend on the guy who has a lot of contracts with arbitrary whites, but no contracts at all with blacks. All what matters is that it may be considered as sufficient evidence, and in this case he may be punished. So, people may be punished for simply using their freedom of contract, in the original, classical liberal version of "freedom of contract". You defend this obviously anti-liberal situation, which proves that you reject classical liberalism.