Argyle King
Legend
As an individual, I totally can. I can spend my money wherever I choose.
As a business, I have an obligation not to discriminate based on various things. I can't refuse service to black people, for example, or relegate them to a separate part of my business.
And if I'm running a business that performs a vital infrastructure service, such as facilitating payments for e-commerce, I should be required to provide those services to all comers unless otherwise prohibited by law (e.g. money laundering).
I would also argue that something being in poor taste doesn't mean it should be illegal.
I agree with the majority of that.
I both understand and support measures that protect people from discrimination.
Though, I would also add that -from my own point of view- there is an important difference between a govt saying that you cannot do something (i.e. discriminate against a protected class) and a govt having the power to compel you to do something (i.e. per mandate, you must engage in an activity with someone).
I do not currently live in the EU. So, gaining some clarity on how things are approached (ban vs compulsion) is helpful.
In layman's terms, does the govt say "you cannot deny sale of a requested item to X group" or does the govt say "you are mandated to sell a requested item to X group"?
In regards to the original post, I oppose shadow bans of the nature described.
By default*, I am of the belief that two consenting parties (adults) should be allowed to engage in a transaction, as long as what they're doing doesn't harm or infringe upon others. Whether I or anyone else likes the activity in which parties engage as part of mutually agreeable transaction should be largely immaterial to whether or not they're allowed to do it.
*I say "by default" because I find that sometimes real life and tangible problem solving doesn't neatly align with theory.
Last edited: