4 ms·
IANAL but this seems like the kind of thing that gets the state sued every time a barrier could have protected a business or it’s employees but couldn’t because
by todd3834 4y ago
IANAL but this seems like the kind of thing that gets the state sued every time a barrier could have protected a business or it’s employees but couldn’t because the business was forced to have it removed.
Even if it passed, I can’t imagine something like this lasts long at all.
- Mordisquitos 4y agoAll the more considering the apparent motivation and justification for such a law—that it is "an indignity" for customers. If such a reason were to be seen as valid, what would be stopping a law that for instance banned customer-facing workers from wearing facemasks due to the resulting "indignity"? I'm hardly a free-market purist, but this is a prime example of a let-the-market-decide problem. Let businesses decide if they need bulletproof glass or not, and let customers decide if they want avoid the bulletproofed stores if they feel affronted. One may argue of course that, given the choice, all stores in certain areas would chose to install bulletproof glass, leaving the customers with no choice. If that were the case then surely the problem is much broader in scope than customer dignity.