You might not be disgusted, that is your right. It is their right to be disgusted.
If you're looking for an argument why one should be disgusted, one cannot be forthcoming. I cannot give you a very persuasive argument why you should be sympathetic to the personal circumstances that the homeless find themselves in. That sort of sympathy is kinda just its own purpose or its own end; if you lack it then there is very little I can tell you that would definitively convince you of its merit. Like I can BS with fallacies all the day long about how this sort of empathy was important to our species in premodern times and continues to be important in modern times, but the fallacy will remain that simply because that disposition exists in a collective historical interest, that does not mean it is in your particular individual interest.
You're saying it's impossible to believe in helping the homeless while also believing there exist restaurants they shouldn't be in in their current state?
Because that feels like a false dichotomy.
Do you also think that if someone has the right to view pornography, they have the right to do it everywhere?
Do you think that if violent child molester deserves a right to a job, that should include the right to working at a day care center? And if someone thinks that's not a job they should get, they must lack empathy?
Those feel like unwarranted inferences, intended more for emotional appeal than constructive engagement.
I never would say something is impossible to believe unless it were a logical contradiction, and even then I wouldn't be 100% sure in saying it. People believe all sorts of things.
I’m just saying that people have a right to be disgusted by the store’s reasoning. I did not say anything that could be construed as supporting violent child molesters and the fact that you think I did says much more about you than me.
Your comment is bluster in search of a fight. I don’t have one to give you. You were just wrong. Tomorrow’s another day.
I'm sure they would try to turn away any middle class homeowner who hasn't bathed in months as well.
I think it's reasonable to have some sanitation and pleasentness standards in a restaurant. Anyone from any economic class could meet or not meet those standards. It may be harder for a homeless person to stay relatively well kept, but I don't think that is the responsibility of the restaurants to fix. We should reduce the people living in filth, not accept and encourage filth I'm public spaces.
Who said this person hasn't bathed in months? I have to challenge your claim of it being fine to want "pleasantness" or "standards" in a public space. 60 years ago, pre civil rights, this "pleasantness" meant not being black, which is ridiculous. "Filth" is also very much culturally shaped ... it sounds like you are saying homelessness == filth && unhealthy && public menace, which is very problematic.
edit: also, the no-cash policy does not filter against the "middle class home owner who hasn't bathed in months", so that does not hold.
That's what price and classiness does, doesn't it? Isn't price the ultimate barrier? Isn't that why Facebook and friends are so effective, because they want to subsidize everything?
More interesting would be to get a business license you must supply services to different tiers of pricing access.
Is a policy which discriminates against cash usage the best way to screen against the "behavior" of being dirty/smelly? Why not just ask him to leave if he loiters too long?
Instead, this policy clearly screens against a group of PEOPLE (those without access to electronic means of payment), which may or may not overlap with those participating in the undesirable "behaviors" I agree a restaurant should have the right to not tolerate.
You might not be disgusted, that is your right. It is their right to be disgusted.
If you're looking for an argument why one should be disgusted, one cannot be forthcoming. I cannot give you a very persuasive argument why you should be sympathetic to the personal circumstances that the homeless find themselves in. That sort of sympathy is kinda just its own purpose or its own end; if you lack it then there is very little I can tell you that would definitively convince you of its merit. Like I can BS with fallacies all the day long about how this sort of empathy was important to our species in premodern times and continues to be important in modern times, but the fallacy will remain that simply because that disposition exists in a collective historical interest, that does not mean it is in your particular individual interest.