People would, because they are trained to see and advocate for government giving more power to corporations. The power to do, and the power to not do. So many are so well trained that they think that granting the power to not do to already rich institutions is some kind of rebel yell for freedom.You're saying that it takes choice away from the corporation, not the customer. The comment I responded to pertained to giving more choice to the customer:
"How about BAD, we don't want municipalities telling us how we are allowed to spend our money and in what form."
In both cases, there is a choice being taken from a group so that another group has an additional choice. You're arguing in favour of reducing the options people have of how and where to spend their money in favour of a corporation having the choice to refuse to accept certain payment types. I'm saying that means reduced choice for people concerning how and where they can spend their money.
Which trade-off is more important?:
- corporation gets to choose to not accept cash, people with cash lose freedom to spend their money how they wish.
- corporation loses the option to not accept cash, people with cash preserve their freedom to spend their money how they wish.
I can't imagine why you'd argue for customers to lose choice and access in favour of a corporation being able to take away customers' choice and access, unless you owned the corporation (and were a bit of a prick to your customers).