Quote:
Originally Posted by Froide
I've read the other posts in this thread, concur with many responses, e.g., those citing the purpose of consumer law and escrow services, and am sorry to read about crich70's unsatisfactory Wal-Mart experience. I am equally displeased with many moves B&N has made regarding NOOK Store products. Nonetheless, the post that moved me to enter this conversation is:
I perceive the meaning of, "The store is under no obligation to sell me anything else", very differently from, " here in the US, a business reserves the right to not serve a person".
Regarding the latter: Eek! 
I acknowledge and have no qualms about the fact that modern-day USA commercial establishments can legally decline to serve people who have, for legitimate reasons, been barred (e.g., for stealing, behaving inappropriately, making excessive returns), cut off (e.g., for inebriation or having already bought a maximum amount of some limited-quantity item), or do not meet government-approved, published guidelines that apply equally to everyone (e.g., minimum age to buy tobacco or alcohol, dress code to enter certain retail establishments or educational institutions, or height requirement for amusement park rides). Nonetheless, reading that line makes me cringe and shudder, in remembrance of America's ugly, not-so-distant past, when hateful signs bearing such warnings as, "No Blacks Allowed/No Chinese Allowed/No Jews Allowed", were commonplace, allowable by law, reflective of illegitimate reasons for not serving prospective customers, and led to a culture wherein (for some people) "never leave home without it" applied not to an American Express card but to publications such as The Negro Travelers' Green Book. |
Your reasons are precisely why those rights are reserved.
I have seen one instance where I was GLAD the businesses have that right. Otherwise that blankity blank could have stayed. It was a child oriented restaurant. This guy came in wearing a t-shirt that said "I will f*** (full word) you until you find a boyfriend.
It has nothing to do with semantics which a business cannot do. Discrimination is illegal.
How would you phrase it?
Over here, everything has to be specified.
If the business did not have that right, then the children would be exposed to more perverts.
There wouldn't be anything in the stores. And let's not forget health issues. If I forget my shoes or shirt, then a restaurant has the right to not serve me.
Ok I think we are having a word problem.
How do your businesses specify keeping out the riffraff?
Rights over here are what people can do within the scope of the law.
Example: I have the right to go topless or bottomless (except in certain bars) if I so choose.
Businesses have the right to tell me I can't enter their place of business because of the lack of clothes.
Of course if someone complained I could be arrested for public nudity if topless. If I am wearing a short skirt and no bloomers, no crime has been committed (unless in certain bars) .
Then it would be public lewdness.
I'm think they can also refuse to allow someone in if they are totally stinky smelling.
Now a business can't refuse me because I am whatever color or religion I may be, because they would be breaking the law.