Et Tu L L Bean?

[BigRed]

I don't think the two equate. Refusing to sell to a "class" of people isn't the same as refusing to sell to someone who's trying to skirt the law and create liability/ris for you (warning signs of straw purchase) or selling the item to the person would result in harm (ie, selling a gun to someone who's showing suicidal indicators).

It's direct analogous to profiling. Racial profiling is both ethically wrong and ineffective. Behavioral profiling is how hard wired into us or we wouldn't survive and is foolish to ignore.

So do you want a law where private business owners are required by the government to sell to those it does not want to?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So do you want a law where private business owners are required by the government to sell to those it does not want to?

We've already got those laws, and for good reason. As it stands, we've carved out certain groups that are allowed to have unfettered access to the economy instead of just saying everyone has unfettered access. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll just pull my argument from another thread. It's one half of the conversation, so some of it is addressing questions that aren't asked here, but it gives you an idea of where I stand and why.

Anything else allows a group to become second class citizens, by both isolating them and by denying them access to the economy. That's why we have things like the Fair Housing Act, after all. To allow equal opportunity for access to the economy.

...Surely you're aware that historically that's exactly what happened and was the impetus behind fair housing, employment discrimination laws, etc? You couldn't get a mortgage, the landowner wouldn't sell, etc. if you weren't the right kind of people for the neighborhood. Keeps you in your place, you know. Which dramatically reduced the ability to enter the middle class, because of reduced rates of home ownership and homes you could own not appreciating and building wealth over the years.

I also believe in a free market. I just don't agree with you what that means. How can a market with limits as to who has the opportunity to participate be free? That's a limited market by definition. If you sell widgets for $5, everyone with $5 has the opportunity to participate if no gate keeper decides who gets widgets and who doesn't. That's a free market.

I think it's well recognized that children do not enjoy the full set of rights and responsibilities adults do in ANY society. Being able to enter a contract is an adult right and responsibility. I understand that we've set the bar for "adult" at different places in different societies, different times, and for different sectors of society (16 to drive and accept the responsibilities, 21 to apply the same to alcohol), etc.

Instead of carving out protected classes, who gatekeepers are not allowed to keep out of the economy, how about simply making everyone "protected" and given free and equal access?

Now, I do understand the world isn't completely black and white, and exemptions should be legal if doing so would cause liability for the merchant. Renting a car, for example, causes risk to the owner and nobody doubts a 16 year old is more likely to crash than a 30 year old. Insurance rates, car/property rental, even alcohol, all can incur liability and risk for the merchant, and is certainly more gray. Selling widgets, no matter if it's a rifle, a cake, a box of frozen hamburger patties, etc. incurs no liability if sold to someone legally allowed to have it.

 

[indiucky]

I don't think the two equate.

No sir..

 

[BigRed]

We've already got those laws, and for good reason. As it stands, we've carved out certain groups that are allowed to have unfettered access to the economy instead of just saying everyone has unfettered access. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll just pull my argument from another thread. It's one half of the conversation, so some of it is addressing questions that aren't asked here, but it gives you an idea of where I stand and why.

I understand the position.

I simply disagree; even with existing laws where private business owners are made to transact business by force.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I understand the position.

I simply disagree; even with existing laws where private business owners are made to transact business by force.

People can draw the line at different places, but fewer gatekeepers = a more free market. It's no different than collusion to form monopolies, price fixing, etc. All ways to subvert the free market.

I draw the lines at the US borders. Anyone here legally should have the same opportunity to participate in a free market.

 

[WebSnyper]

my wife bought a light backpack to use as a diaper bag. thing fell apart after a year. now I have a new reason not to go there anymore.

Not to thread jack, as I've never had any of their products, but I thought up until recently they had a lifetime guarantee/return items for any reason. Probably could have had that thing replaced a time or 10. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/17/why-ll-bean-ended-its-lifetime-return-policy.html