[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.

[thaumasiotes]

This is not the correct way to evaluate policies; if I get a law passed that specifies that you may not date, marry, or reproduce, by definition you have no legitimate claim to those things, but I hope you'll agree that the law is harming you anyway.

In the case of the kiosk, their policies are making everyone worse off and nobody better off; this is the easiest possible case for "harmful policies".

[s1artibartfast]

There are government policies, and the policies of private parties.

If the government passes a law saying they kill two people for having consentual sex, yes, those people are harmed.

If one of those people has a policy that they dont want to have sex with you, that isnt harm.

In the case of the kiosk, the other private party is the one with their own personal policy. You dont get to dictate what is good for them and what they want. what if they care more about the line order than making money? that is totally within their rights.

The point is you dont get to make that decision for them any more than you do for a woman. You dont get to override and decide her preferences are simply wrong.