xmbts said:
targren said:
Ugh, this is getting rather boring, and you refuse to understand what I'm trying to say despite me putting it as bluntly as possible.
A movement that inconveniences others who have done no wrong, just because they don't particularly care for them is a selfish one, end of.
So then you advocate that DUI should no longer be illegal, because many people have driven drunk and never even gotten a speeding ticket while doing so? Or selling handguns to 7 year-olds? Most of them haven't ever killed anyone, after all.
And before you counter that the
risk warrants making it illegal, and that's different, don't bother. I am aware of that. However, your reasoning, it seems, is not. You could simply have said that you disagree. Instead, you played the morality card, which doesn't hold up against the facts of the situation.
No business wants to lose customers. Businesses are to make money, and losing customers is losing money. If a business is considering a policy like this, it means they are working on the assumption that more people are being driven off by badly behaved kids, than they would drive off with the policy.
If they're right, then more people who previously wouldn't patronize their business because of lousy kids will do so, and your claims about the problem being with "everyone else" just prove my point made earlier. If they're wrong, then they will NOT gain the increase in customers, PLUS they will lose the customers they already had who brought the kids in.
Economically, it's a risk. Morally, it's a push. Anyone's right to patronize a business is not more important than the business owners right to set its policies.