6 ms·

> If this guy has the money for a season pass (!) he has the money for a smartphone. Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative conseq

> If this guy has the money for a season pass (!) he has the money for a smartphone. Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative consequences that come along with having a smartphone. Maybe he has dexterity issues that make using a smartphone difficult. Maybe he doesn't want to install their invasive app. Maybe he finds that paper tickets are easier to manage. Maybe he recognizes that the vendor made this change to benefit themselves at the expense of the fans, as it allows them greater control of the resale market. I own a smartphone but prefer paper tickets. Luckily I can (and do) still get them at my team's stadium, although I have to pick them up in person.

LadyCailin 6mo ago
I’m not sure how exactly this should be worded in law, but I really wish they would pass a law requiring supporting people without smartphone apps. Obviously there would be some exceptions where justified, even for things other than “the app is the whole point” and those need to be thought through, but in this case and plenty of others, there’s just no reason they can’t accommodate non app users. “It costs more to support non app users” is not a sufficient justification.
- EvanAnderson 6mo ago
  > “It costs more to support non app users” is not a sufficient justification. For sure. If that was true the answer would be "charge the non-app users a nominal fee to cover the cost". Invasive tracking is the point, not the cost. It's anti-consumer.
  - nobody9999 6mo ago
    >For sure. If that was true the answer would be "charge the non-app users a nominal fee to cover the cost". >Invasive tracking is the point, not the cost. It's anti-consumer. The last (and likely the last) time I went to an MLB game (not the Dodgers), perhaps six years ago or so, I was required to install a smartphone app when I purchased my tickets, keep that app on my smartphone for before and during the actual game. In the several months after buying a ticket and seeing the game, I received no less that 100 spam email messages (I was required to provide an email address as well) from the team's "partners." What's more, not only was there no option for a paper ticket, if I left my seat during the game to get food/drink, I was required to have my smartphone and present my "ticket" via their app to security personnel when I returned to my seat. Every time. As I said, even though I was (and am) a life-long fan, I will never go back to the stadium to see a game. It was far too invasive and inconvenient. Edit: I'd add that I couldn't even block emails (which I routinely do at the server for other emails) from those "partners" because there were emails that were required to obtain my tickets. That isn't me not wanting to "learn" something, that's me not wanting to receive multiple spam emails every day from the same source.
    - antisol 6mo ago
      Protip: always use plus aliases when signing up for things like this. Use a unique plus alias for everything you sign up for (the convention I use is e.g myemail+yourcompanyname@mydomain.com). This convention lets you be sure exactly who sold your info when the spam comes, based on the to address, and it also lets you easily block email from that source after you've got your tickets. The only downsides are that sometimes it doesn't work if their shitty form verification insists that the plus character isn't valid in an email address. In those cases I tend to set up an actual mail alias (yourcompany@mydomain.com), but that's an annoying extra step - pluis aliasing is simple, requires no configuration, and works everywhere. But this is pretty rare. And if you're using it to sign in to things, you'll want a password manager so that you can remember what plus alias you used for each site. Don't misunderstand me - I'm not defending the behaviour you're posting about - it's reprehensible and I wouldn't have bought tickets at all under such a system. What I'm offering is a way to make it more manageable for people who don't want to go without things that you can only buy under these user-hostile models.
      - nobody9999 6mo ago
        >Protip: always use plus aliases when signing up for things like this. Use a unique plus alias for everything you sign up for (the convention I use is e.g myemail+yourcompanyname@mydomain.com). This convention lets you be sure exactly who sold your info when the spam comes, based on the to address, and it also lets you easily block email from that source after you've got your tickets. I don't use "plus aliases." I don't need to. I've owned my own domains for just about 30 years, so I just use <whoeveritis>@mydomain.com and then block any emails that start spamming or are just annoying. Protip: Host your own emails so those greedy scumbags can't cut you off whenever they please, leaving you unable to access all the crap you authenticate through your "plus aliases" Edit: N.B., I appreciate that you brought that up. Some folks may find that useful even if I don't. That said, I still say folks should host their own email if they have the resources (minimal) and inclination (less so).
        antisol 6mo ago
        So in other words you could have easily blocked the spam emails you were complaining about after the first one arrived. Regular aliases are fine, but they're more difficult to set up. And don't work everywhere. I do host my own email. But not everybody has the knowledge/inclination to do so. Which is fine if that's their choice. Plus aliases work for those people too.
- mhurron 6mo ago
  > “It costs more to support non app users” is not a sufficient justification. Then why is 'I don't wanna' sufficient justification to force non-critical services to support your preferences forever?
  - duskdozer 6mo ago
    Because - people should have more rights and protections than corporations - people should be able to have a normal, full life in society without being constantly surveilled and manipulated - people should be given reasonable accommodations to live in said society
- dmitrygr 6mo ago
  > I’m not sure how exactly this should be worded in law No policy or law shall be enacted that directly or indirectly requires a use of a computing device where any other alternative at all is possible. Where offering other alternatives presents a cost, that cost (and only that cost, with no markup) may be passed on to the consumer.
  - tjohns 6mo ago
    That could still get prohibitively expensive. Take the example from this article, where there's only one person still using the paper ticket option... I could see someone arguing you need a specially trained staff member or supervisor to verify your ID for anti-scalping, which they don't need to do for other e-tickets. Say only one person uses this option all season, they could be asked to pay for an entire employee's salary/benefits. It's a bit hyperbolic, but supporting non-standard workflows is organizationally expensive with many non-quantifable costs.
    - dmitrygr 6mo ago
      If the law had existed all along, it would not be a non-standard workflow. And there is precedent on the pricing. For example, FAA is not allowed to charge any more for any service than it costs to deliver said service, which is why if i lose my pilot's license, a replacement is $3.
      - robocat 6mo ago
        There's no way that costs the FAA $3. It is a wealthy service for wealthy people, so they can afford to absorb some costs. Your knowledge and wording indicates you are likely part of the demographic that knows how to threaten with lawyers. One cause for the cost-recovery rule was the case Asiana Airlines v. FAA: The court ruled that the FAA’s enabling statute required fees to be "directly related" to the agency's actual costs. They held that the FAA couldn't look at the value of the service to the airline; they could only look at the receipts for what it cost the FAA to "flip the switches and manage the radar".
- dghlsakjg 6mo ago
  The law that he can invoke in a weaponized way is the ADA. It’s vague enough about what a disability is, that something like “my hand tremor and farsightedness preclude using a touchscreen, I request a reasonable accommodation” is a valid request. If they deny admission and accommodation to somebody incapable of using a smartphone, there is a whole army of lawyers that will gladly take the case on contingency. As you note, the app is not inherent to seeing a game, or preventing resale. There’s no reason an id and confirmation number can’t be used to get him in.
  - tim-tday 6mo ago
    There is a special ring of hell reserved for people who abuse the ADA. Such abuse is an insult to everyone who needs it, everyone who engages with it in good faith, everyone who spends gobs of money to make events and services accessible to those with genuine need. I don’t rule the world but if I did abusers of protective rules would be summarily executed. (Don’t vote for me. I’ve got a short but significant list of similar policies. Scammers those guys would have targets on their heads, kidnap for ransom criminals those guys too)
    - Lammy 6mo ago
      I don't agree that using the ADA in this way would be abuse.
      - ryandrake 6mo ago
        The ADA was a rare "great" law, in that it is sweeping, applies broadly to many different forms of disability, and it provides companies very little leeway to weasel their way out of complying. It also provides us with a very, very good generic framework for consumer protections, should we ever get an administration who cared about consumer freedom over corporate interests. I'd love to see other (not disability related) ADA-like laws that compel companies to make other reasonable accommodations to be inclusive of reasonable consumers. All kinds of amazing "consumer bill of rights" regulation could be modeled after the ADA.
    - 6mo ago
Raed667 6mo ago
He can get a smartphone dedicated to the ticket app if it is such a huge piece of his life/hobby
- antisol 6mo ago
  What if he doesn't agree to google/apple's terms of service?
  - jamincan 6mo ago
    Then he can't buy the tickets. People aren't born with a god-given right to get seasons tickets to Dodger's games. There are businesses that choose not to handle cash and only accept credit or debit payments. I need to agree to a credit card companies terms and conditions for that too. Is that unreasonable?
    - antisol 6mo ago
      Yes. Businesses should have to accept cash.
- hombre_fatal 6mo ago
  "Cheap android phone" on Google Shopping shows options for $30. Didn't even know they get that cheap.
  - incanus77 6mo ago
    Is then logging into your Google account (if you have one) also without cost and tradeoffs?
    - thiht 6mo ago
      Just create a new one… you people are just looking for ways to be difficult about this
      - 6mo ago
michaelt 6mo ago
> Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative consequences that come along with having a smartphone. In my country right now there's a lot of hand-wringing about the impact of social media and smartphones on teenagers' mental health and education. We've got schools banning phones, and the government wanting to introduce age checks for social media. Infinite doomscrolling in your pocket, endless brainrot short-form videos, it's not healthy and we need to get smartphones out of the hands of the young. So there are good reasons people might choose not to get a smartphone. Then exactly the same government also proposed people wouldn't be allowed to work without a 'Digital ID Card' - making smartphones (and google/apple accounts) mandatory.
- raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
  No there isn’t a good reason for the nanny state and giving the government more power over your life
  - sapphicsnail 6mo ago
    How are nanny corporations any better?
    - raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
      Nanny corporations don’t have a “monopoly on [legalized] violence” and can’t compel me to do anything with guns
      - philistine 6mo ago
        Not yet!
  - _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
    1980 wants it's republican talking point back. It's 2026, we've seen that free speech absoluters don't actually care about protecting all speech. We've seen 'small government' and 'no government power over your life' supporters suddenly just fine with it when women's right to choose is taken away by the government. Or when the government wants to decide/legally enforce gender their gender definition. We've seen the 'less government' people do nothing as the Feds trample local laws, illegally seize voter roles (voting is a states issue), attempts to inject federal requirements into elections and attach what is a large cost for some people to the right to vote. So we're going to need more nuance than a disengenuous 1980 platitude on the topic.
scoofy 6mo ago
>Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative consequences that come along with having a smartphone. Maybe he doesn't then get any of the benefits of having a smartphone. I don't understand why we need to bend over backwards for folks who have chosen to ignore modernity. There was a woman in my neighborhood association at one point who would throw a fit about us using email for communication because "not everyone has a computer you know." This was in 2018. As a society, we've gone completely out of our way to make living on your own terms legal and doable. You don't even have to get you or your kids vaccinated if you don't want to! But then going even farther and expecting to get all the same benefits as folks who've decided to accept and use modern technology is ridiculous... the Dodgers don't owe this man physical season tickets, just like Google doesn't owe me the ability to physically mail in a search term and have the results physically mailed back to me.
- joquarky 6mo ago
  If it's so important to modernity then it shouldn't be handled by private companies.
  - scoofy 6mo ago
    Your idealism is fine, and I think regulation of this is completely reasonable, but this isn't much different than private automobile or bicycle companies for transportation. The biggest issue here is an anti-trust concern about two app stores, which should not be allowed. That has nothing to do, however, with having a portable computer to help you with high-end exchanges of goods and services.
ryandrake 6mo ago
He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experiences. In 50 years, everyone's going to have an advertisement-injecting brain implant, and stores are going to require you to have one in order to purchase anything, and they'll lock you out of commerce as a filthy Luddite if you don't get one. And, 50 years from now, commenters on HN will defend those businesses because the implant is "modern" and supporting those ancient smartphones and credit cards is hard to do.
- carefree-bob 6mo ago
  I do worry how smart phones have become mandatory for a lot of services. Viscerally, I don't like it, because of the monthly payment aspect. I don't have an elaborate theology that is not self-contradictory, it just seems wrong to me.
  - ryandrake 6mo ago
    I think it's a normal reaction to have a visceral negative response to this. You shouldn't have to buy a harmful product as a condition for buying the thing you actually want to buy, or even more broadly as a condition for participating in commerce in general. I don't think the theology needs to be more complex than that. Do the Dodgers have the right to exclude non-smartphone owners from participating in commerce with them? I suppose they have the legal right to, but we have a visceral reaction to it because it is morally questionable, and even smartphone owners can easily come up with examples where they'd be harmed by similar discrimination: The Dodgers also have the right to exclude non-smokers. They could say tomorrow that you can only buy a season ticket if you're a smoker, and I think that would be considered equally unacceptable to most of us.
- reaperducer 6mo ago
  He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experiences. When I run into this (most recently at a hospital), I tell them "The court doesn't allow me to have a smart phone because I'm a hazard to national security.†" When they argue (very rarely), I tell them "Take it up with judge Kelso in the 225th District Court. He's in the phone book." That's usually enough for them to break out the backup non-smartphone plan. In my experience, there's always another way, but they're just too lazy to do it. † Absolutely a lie, but I really don't GAF.
socalgal2 6mo ago
A business doesn't have to serve all customers. You can't walk into 99.99% of USA stores and pay in rupees or yen or yuan. This is no different. They can choose what they accept and what they don't. Just like not every store takes credit cards or doesn't take certain credit cards (discover, amex) or doesn't take bitcoin.

LadyCailin 6mo ago

I’m not sure how exactly this should be worded in law, but I really wish they would pass a law requiring supporting people without smartphone apps. Obviously there would be some exceptions where justified, even for things other than “the app is the whole point” and those need to be thought through, but in this case and plenty of others, there’s just no reason they can’t accommodate non app users. “It costs more to support non app users” is not a sufficient justification.

EvanAnderson 6mo ago
> “It costs more to support non app users” is not a sufficient justification. For sure. If that was true the answer would be "charge the non-app users a nominal fee to cover the cost". Invasive tracking is the point, not the cost. It's anti-consumer.
- nobody9999 6mo ago
  >For sure. If that was true the answer would be "charge the non-app users a nominal fee to cover the cost". >Invasive tracking is the point, not the cost. It's anti-consumer. The last (and likely the last) time I went to an MLB game (not the Dodgers), perhaps six years ago or so, I was required to install a smartphone app when I purchased my tickets, keep that app on my smartphone for before and during the actual game. In the several months after buying a ticket and seeing the game, I received no less that 100 spam email messages (I was required to provide an email address as well) from the team's "partners." What's more, not only was there no option for a paper ticket, if I left my seat during the game to get food/drink, I was required to have my smartphone and present my "ticket" via their app to security personnel when I returned to my seat. Every time. As I said, even though I was (and am) a life-long fan, I will never go back to the stadium to see a game. It was far too invasive and inconvenient. Edit: I'd add that I couldn't even block emails (which I routinely do at the server for other emails) from those "partners" because there were emails that were required to obtain my tickets. That isn't me not wanting to "learn" something, that's me not wanting to receive multiple spam emails every day from the same source.
  - antisol 6mo ago
    Protip: always use plus aliases when signing up for things like this. Use a unique plus alias for everything you sign up for (the convention I use is e.g myemail+yourcompanyname@mydomain.com). This convention lets you be sure exactly who sold your info when the spam comes, based on the to address, and it also lets you easily block email from that source after you've got your tickets. The only downsides are that sometimes it doesn't work if their shitty form verification insists that the plus character isn't valid in an email address. In those cases I tend to set up an actual mail alias (yourcompany@mydomain.com), but that's an annoying extra step - pluis aliasing is simple, requires no configuration, and works everywhere. But this is pretty rare. And if you're using it to sign in to things, you'll want a password manager so that you can remember what plus alias you used for each site. Don't misunderstand me - I'm not defending the behaviour you're posting about - it's reprehensible and I wouldn't have bought tickets at all under such a system. What I'm offering is a way to make it more manageable for people who don't want to go without things that you can only buy under these user-hostile models.
    - nobody9999 6mo ago
      >Protip: always use plus aliases when signing up for things like this. Use a unique plus alias for everything you sign up for (the convention I use is e.g myemail+yourcompanyname@mydomain.com). This convention lets you be sure exactly who sold your info when the spam comes, based on the to address, and it also lets you easily block email from that source after you've got your tickets. I don't use "plus aliases." I don't need to. I've owned my own domains for just about 30 years, so I just use <whoeveritis>@mydomain.com and then block any emails that start spamming or are just annoying. Protip: Host your own emails so those greedy scumbags can't cut you off whenever they please, leaving you unable to access all the crap you authenticate through your "plus aliases" Edit: N.B., I appreciate that you brought that up. Some folks may find that useful even if I don't. That said, I still say folks should host their own email if they have the resources (minimal) and inclination (less so).
      - antisol 6mo ago
        So in other words you could have easily blocked the spam emails you were complaining about after the first one arrived. Regular aliases are fine, but they're more difficult to set up. And don't work everywhere. I do host my own email. But not everybody has the knowledge/inclination to do so. Which is fine if that's their choice. Plus aliases work for those people too.
mhurron 6mo ago
> “It costs more to support non app users” is not a sufficient justification. Then why is 'I don't wanna' sufficient justification to force non-critical services to support your preferences forever?
- duskdozer 6mo ago
  Because - people should have more rights and protections than corporations - people should be able to have a normal, full life in society without being constantly surveilled and manipulated - people should be given reasonable accommodations to live in said society
dmitrygr 6mo ago
> I’m not sure how exactly this should be worded in law No policy or law shall be enacted that directly or indirectly requires a use of a computing device where any other alternative at all is possible. Where offering other alternatives presents a cost, that cost (and only that cost, with no markup) may be passed on to the consumer.
- tjohns 6mo ago
  That could still get prohibitively expensive. Take the example from this article, where there's only one person still using the paper ticket option... I could see someone arguing you need a specially trained staff member or supervisor to verify your ID for anti-scalping, which they don't need to do for other e-tickets. Say only one person uses this option all season, they could be asked to pay for an entire employee's salary/benefits. It's a bit hyperbolic, but supporting non-standard workflows is organizationally expensive with many non-quantifable costs.
  - dmitrygr 6mo ago
    If the law had existed all along, it would not be a non-standard workflow. And there is precedent on the pricing. For example, FAA is not allowed to charge any more for any service than it costs to deliver said service, which is why if i lose my pilot's license, a replacement is $3.
    - robocat 6mo ago
      There's no way that costs the FAA $3. It is a wealthy service for wealthy people, so they can afford to absorb some costs. Your knowledge and wording indicates you are likely part of the demographic that knows how to threaten with lawyers. One cause for the cost-recovery rule was the case Asiana Airlines v. FAA: The court ruled that the FAA’s enabling statute required fees to be "directly related" to the agency's actual costs. They held that the FAA couldn't look at the value of the service to the airline; they could only look at the receipts for what it cost the FAA to "flip the switches and manage the radar".
dghlsakjg 6mo ago
The law that he can invoke in a weaponized way is the ADA. It’s vague enough about what a disability is, that something like “my hand tremor and farsightedness preclude using a touchscreen, I request a reasonable accommodation” is a valid request. If they deny admission and accommodation to somebody incapable of using a smartphone, there is a whole army of lawyers that will gladly take the case on contingency. As you note, the app is not inherent to seeing a game, or preventing resale. There’s no reason an id and confirmation number can’t be used to get him in.
- tim-tday 6mo ago
  There is a special ring of hell reserved for people who abuse the ADA. Such abuse is an insult to everyone who needs it, everyone who engages with it in good faith, everyone who spends gobs of money to make events and services accessible to those with genuine need. I don’t rule the world but if I did abusers of protective rules would be summarily executed. (Don’t vote for me. I’ve got a short but significant list of similar policies. Scammers those guys would have targets on their heads, kidnap for ransom criminals those guys too)
  - Lammy 6mo ago
    I don't agree that using the ADA in this way would be abuse.
    - ryandrake 6mo ago
      The ADA was a rare "great" law, in that it is sweeping, applies broadly to many different forms of disability, and it provides companies very little leeway to weasel their way out of complying. It also provides us with a very, very good generic framework for consumer protections, should we ever get an administration who cared about consumer freedom over corporate interests. I'd love to see other (not disability related) ADA-like laws that compel companies to make other reasonable accommodations to be inclusive of reasonable consumers. All kinds of amazing "consumer bill of rights" regulation could be modeled after the ADA.
  - 6mo ago

Raed667 6mo ago

He can get a smartphone dedicated to the ticket app if it is such a huge piece of his life/hobby

antisol 6mo ago
What if he doesn't agree to google/apple's terms of service?
- jamincan 6mo ago
  Then he can't buy the tickets. People aren't born with a god-given right to get seasons tickets to Dodger's games. There are businesses that choose not to handle cash and only accept credit or debit payments. I need to agree to a credit card companies terms and conditions for that too. Is that unreasonable?
  - antisol 6mo ago
    Yes. Businesses should have to accept cash.
hombre_fatal 6mo ago
"Cheap android phone" on Google Shopping shows options for $30. Didn't even know they get that cheap.
- incanus77 6mo ago
  Is then logging into your Google account (if you have one) also without cost and tradeoffs?
  - thiht 6mo ago
    Just create a new one… you people are just looking for ways to be difficult about this
    - 6mo ago

michaelt 6mo ago

> Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative consequences that come along with having a smartphone. In my country right now there's a lot of hand-wringing about the impact of social media and smartphones on teenagers' mental health and education. We've got schools banning phones, and the government wanting to introduce age checks for social media. Infinite doomscrolling in your pocket, endless brainrot short-form videos, it's not healthy and we need to get smartphones out of the hands of the young. So there are good reasons people might choose not to get a smartphone. Then exactly the same government also proposed people wouldn't be allowed to work without a 'Digital ID Card' - making smartphones (and google/apple accounts) mandatory.

raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
No there isn’t a good reason for the nanny state and giving the government more power over your life
- sapphicsnail 6mo ago
  How are nanny corporations any better?
  - raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
    Nanny corporations don’t have a “monopoly on [legalized] violence” and can’t compel me to do anything with guns
    - philistine 6mo ago
      Not yet!
- _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
  1980 wants it's republican talking point back. It's 2026, we've seen that free speech absoluters don't actually care about protecting all speech. We've seen 'small government' and 'no government power over your life' supporters suddenly just fine with it when women's right to choose is taken away by the government. Or when the government wants to decide/legally enforce gender their gender definition. We've seen the 'less government' people do nothing as the Feds trample local laws, illegally seize voter roles (voting is a states issue), attempts to inject federal requirements into elections and attach what is a large cost for some people to the right to vote. So we're going to need more nuance than a disengenuous 1980 platitude on the topic.

scoofy 6mo ago

>Maybe it's not about the money. Maybe he does not want the negative consequences that come along with having a smartphone. Maybe he doesn't then get any of the benefits of having a smartphone. I don't understand why we need to bend over backwards for folks who have chosen to ignore modernity. There was a woman in my neighborhood association at one point who would throw a fit about us using email for communication because "not everyone has a computer you know." This was in 2018. As a society, we've gone completely out of our way to make living on your own terms legal and doable. You don't even have to get you or your kids vaccinated if you don't want to! But then going even farther and expecting to get all the same benefits as folks who've decided to accept and use modern technology is ridiculous... the Dodgers don't owe this man physical season tickets, just like Google doesn't owe me the ability to physically mail in a search term and have the results physically mailed back to me.

joquarky 6mo ago
If it's so important to modernity then it shouldn't be handled by private companies.
- scoofy 6mo ago
  Your idealism is fine, and I think regulation of this is completely reasonable, but this isn't much different than private automobile or bicycle companies for transportation. The biggest issue here is an anti-trust concern about two app stores, which should not be allowed. That has nothing to do, however, with having a portable computer to help you with high-end exchanges of goods and services.

ryandrake 6mo ago

He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experiences. In 50 years, everyone's going to have an advertisement-injecting brain implant, and stores are going to require you to have one in order to purchase anything, and they'll lock you out of commerce as a filthy Luddite if you don't get one. And, 50 years from now, commenters on HN will defend those businesses because the implant is "modern" and supporting those ancient smartphones and credit cards is hard to do.

carefree-bob 6mo ago
I do worry how smart phones have become mandatory for a lot of services. Viscerally, I don't like it, because of the monthly payment aspect. I don't have an elaborate theology that is not self-contradictory, it just seems wrong to me.
- ryandrake 6mo ago
  I think it's a normal reaction to have a visceral negative response to this. You shouldn't have to buy a harmful product as a condition for buying the thing you actually want to buy, or even more broadly as a condition for participating in commerce in general. I don't think the theology needs to be more complex than that. Do the Dodgers have the right to exclude non-smartphone owners from participating in commerce with them? I suppose they have the legal right to, but we have a visceral reaction to it because it is morally questionable, and even smartphone owners can easily come up with examples where they'd be harmed by similar discrimination: The Dodgers also have the right to exclude non-smokers. They could say tomorrow that you can only buy a season ticket if you're a smoker, and I think that would be considered equally unacceptable to most of us.
reaperducer 6mo ago
He shouldn't even need a reason. "I don't want a smartphone" should be sufficient and should not lock one out of commerce, events, and other cultural experiences. When I run into this (most recently at a hospital), I tell them "The court doesn't allow me to have a smart phone because I'm a hazard to national security.†" When they argue (very rarely), I tell them "Take it up with judge Kelso in the 225th District Court. He's in the phone book." That's usually enough for them to break out the backup non-smartphone plan. In my experience, there's always another way, but they're just too lazy to do it. † Absolutely a lie, but I really don't GAF.

socalgal2 6mo ago

A business doesn't have to serve all customers. You can't walk into 99.99% of USA stores and pay in rupees or yen or yuan. This is no different. They can choose what they accept and what they don't. Just like not every store takes credit cards or doesn't take certain credit cards (discover, amex) or doesn't take bitcoin.