3 ms·

I explained in a different reply to you as well so I won't give a detailed response here. > You haven't asked or considered if your suggestion was legal. It's

I explained in a different reply to you as well so I won't give a detailed response here. > You haven't asked or considered if your suggestion was legal. It's probably a violation of the business owners freedom of association. > You haven't even bothered to explain why you feel its reasonable to force people under penalty of law to do business with you. Being able to provide services to the public is not your right. Much like being able to hire anyone you choose isn't your right. These are pivileges allowed to a business by the public. Private,peaceful and non-profit association is your right but the moment you open doors to the public your rights of where you can open a business,how you can advertise,the quality and conditions of the place of business,who you hire and don't hire,who you fire and many other things are subject to the public's approval and standards (by proxy of govermental orgs). You can refuse to do business in that city,state or country but if you choose to offer services to the public you have to play by the public's rules. This is a natural extenstion under the same authority the public has over public businesses, the public shouldn't force you to do business with someone but the public should also be able to review why you refuse to do business with someone and why after accepting business you then refused that business to a member of the public. This review is for the public tk review how you treat their fellow citizens and decide if you should continue to be allowed to offer services to them. In other words,it's a means by which the public kicks you out of public-access much like you kick out customers. A private business that does not offer or advertise services to the public and does not profit from the public should not be subject to this regulation.

michaelmrose 7y ago
There is no stipulation in the constitution that only non profit association is protected. This is something you literally just invented on the spot. You have to comply with lots of regulations that we have decided on balance are in the public interest. The pre existing body of rules cannot by themselves serve as justification for the imposition of additional rules. The proper justification is the comparison of 2 hypothetical worlds. Example: I believe that businesses should have to have fire doors clear of locks or obstruction because prior misadventures have shown that fire spreads fast and people may not be able to leave via a main exit. Places that have more free fire doors have shown that more people survive fires. It's worth the additional steps during inspections which we already do by employees we already have to ensure this is correct. It's also worth the small additional expense during construction. Who are these people that are simultaneously being refused service and don't deserve such. I have NEVER been refused service at any business in my life. I have only very rarely seen people refused service outright and they were all extremely odious extremely hostile people. At risk of being discourteous is it you and under what circumstances?
- badrabbit 7y ago
  > There is no stipulation in the constitution that only non profit association is protected. This is something you literally just invented on the spot. That would be relevant if association was what was being regulated. Your ability to engage in commerce is what is being regulated and the US constitution makes it very clear congress and state governments have the right to regulate commerce. You are still free to associate or not associate with whom you please but if you associate with or refuse to associate with someone for purposes of commerce the government can restrict your ability to engage in commerce. This is similar to free speech,you can say or not say what you want but for example the government can force speech out of you by way of product labels and disclaimers in advertisements and restrictions on false claims. You can still say or not say those things regardless of the government but that does not mean the government can't use your speech or lack of speech as a criteria for engaging in public commerce. > Who are these people that are simultaneously being refused service and don't deserve such. I have NEVER been refused service at any business in my life. I have only very rarely seen people refused service outright and they were all extremely odious extremely hostile people. At risk of being discourteous is it you and under what circumstances? Let's not get distracted here,the discussion and my initial response here is specific to Sprint's refusal to do business with some customers. I don't know what criteria they used and since they provide public services I feel like their process should be regulated so that I can have some assurance they're not being allowed to do business while mistreating customers for profit. Your lack of experience being in that position is irrelevant. Every complex system with power dynamics between multiple subsystems needs checks and balances. To answer your question, I can't say I have been banned from any business,I have been mistreated and I have had to walk out of establishments. I have had bad customer service and fraudulent and scammy business practices have affected me in the past. I have also worked on the customer support end of this and have witnesssed first hand how looking down on and mistreating customers is rampant. There are far more mistreated customers than there are mistreated customer service reps. A lot of times people vent their anger or speak against the company and the support staff take it personally and become severly jaded against customers. That being said,there are a lot of terrible customers and banning many if them makes sense. If banning customers becomes acceptable I fear it will only be abused by bad employees or bad management at arbitrary companies. You can ban random customers and refuse transparency and regulation and the government can refuse to let you engange in public commerce.

michaelmrose 7y ago

There is no stipulation in the constitution that only non profit association is protected. This is something you literally just invented on the spot. You have to comply with lots of regulations that we have decided on balance are in the public interest. The pre existing body of rules cannot by themselves serve as justification for the imposition of additional rules. The proper justification is the comparison of 2 hypothetical worlds. Example: I believe that businesses should have to have fire doors clear of locks or obstruction because prior misadventures have shown that fire spreads fast and people may not be able to leave via a main exit. Places that have more free fire doors have shown that more people survive fires. It's worth the additional steps during inspections which we already do by employees we already have to ensure this is correct. It's also worth the small additional expense during construction. Who are these people that are simultaneously being refused service and don't deserve such. I have NEVER been refused service at any business in my life. I have only very rarely seen people refused service outright and they were all extremely odious extremely hostile people. At risk of being discourteous is it you and under what circumstances?

badrabbit 7y ago
> There is no stipulation in the constitution that only non profit association is protected. This is something you literally just invented on the spot. That would be relevant if association was what was being regulated. Your ability to engage in commerce is what is being regulated and the US constitution makes it very clear congress and state governments have the right to regulate commerce. You are still free to associate or not associate with whom you please but if you associate with or refuse to associate with someone for purposes of commerce the government can restrict your ability to engage in commerce. This is similar to free speech,you can say or not say what you want but for example the government can force speech out of you by way of product labels and disclaimers in advertisements and restrictions on false claims. You can still say or not say those things regardless of the government but that does not mean the government can't use your speech or lack of speech as a criteria for engaging in public commerce. > Who are these people that are simultaneously being refused service and don't deserve such. I have NEVER been refused service at any business in my life. I have only very rarely seen people refused service outright and they were all extremely odious extremely hostile people. At risk of being discourteous is it you and under what circumstances? Let's not get distracted here,the discussion and my initial response here is specific to Sprint's refusal to do business with some customers. I don't know what criteria they used and since they provide public services I feel like their process should be regulated so that I can have some assurance they're not being allowed to do business while mistreating customers for profit. Your lack of experience being in that position is irrelevant. Every complex system with power dynamics between multiple subsystems needs checks and balances. To answer your question, I can't say I have been banned from any business,I have been mistreated and I have had to walk out of establishments. I have had bad customer service and fraudulent and scammy business practices have affected me in the past. I have also worked on the customer support end of this and have witnesssed first hand how looking down on and mistreating customers is rampant. There are far more mistreated customers than there are mistreated customer service reps. A lot of times people vent their anger or speak against the company and the support staff take it personally and become severly jaded against customers. That being said,there are a lot of terrible customers and banning many if them makes sense. If banning customers becomes acceptable I fear it will only be abused by bad employees or bad management at arbitrary companies. You can ban random customers and refuse transparency and regulation and the government can refuse to let you engange in public commerce.