[s1artibartfast]

I think the interesting thing about this post is the sense of entitlement.

Why does a businesses operating in a way you dislike entitle you to yell at them and break their rules?

Maybe the cause is conflating not getting your way with active harm. Refusing to serve you would be neutral, stealing from you would be harm.

[thaumasiotes]

Refusing to serve me is harmful to the shop in the most straightforward way you can possibly imagine. They make less money for the same amount of work.

Their entire operation is harmful (to them, and to everyone who buys from them) in the same way; they could easily double the number of customers they process by having one of the idle employees making the drinks instead of the cashier.

[s1artibartfast]

Yeah, I just think that is a strange standard for "harm". I dont think anyone would be harmed if they refused to serve anyone and every employee was idle. What if they dont want to double the number of customers and care more about something else.

I think it is best to approach interactions without entitlement. They dont owe you service, and can choose on which terms they will engage.

Your concept of harm reminds me of how some people think they are "harmed" if someone doesn't want to date them, becoming angry and aggressive.

[thaumasiotes]

> I dont think anyone would be harmed if they refused to serve anyone and every employee was idle.

The owner might have a different opinion.

> Your concept of harm reminds me of how some people think they are "harmed" if someone doesn't want to date them

...and? That's a pretty commonly recognized harm. For example, it's the basis of the tort "alienation of affections".

[s1artibartfast]

Alienation of affection is not when someone chooses not to date you. It is when a third party interferes maliciously, and even then it is recognized and very few jurisdictions. If you try to sue a random woman on the street for the harm done by not wanting to date you, you will be in for a rude awakening.

[thaumasiotes]

It's not a different harm when someone else interferes maliciously. The difference in whether you can sue is a difference in to what degree the other person was entitled to act as they did, not a difference in the harm you suffer.

[s1artibartfast]

Like I said, I think that's a pretty twisted definition of harm. You're harmed when you lose something you are entitled to, not whenever you don't get something that would be nice. The former is the ultimate victim mentality.

I'm not harmed if a female stranger walking down the street doesn't want to have sex, or if every man doesn't give his wallet, just because I ask for it.

You must to have some legitimate claim to a property or service to be harmed by not getting it.