if they can't ban good bettors they'll either swap the odds to juice bad bettors even more or go out of business. The idea that government can force you to do business with people you don't want to do business with is broad and dangerous. I think that banning discrimination for protected classes is a good idea (or, more accurately, a bad idea that several other bad ideas have made into an idea that does actually make things a bit better in pragmatic terms).
Would you agree that as a guiding principle for good government no one should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to or disallowed from associating with anyone they do want to? That's the fundamental right that's in conflict with the idea of not being allowed to ban successful bettors. In the US we've decided that the insidiousness of class-based discrimination merits an exception to that idea, but overall free association rules the day. You as a business or a consumer are free to do business or not with anyone you want to or don't, and that's how it should be afaic.
>Would you agree that as a guiding principle for good government no one should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to or disallowed from associating with anyone they do want to?
For an individual? Sure.
For a business? Morally/ ethically, no. If you have a business model predicated on only being profitable when you pick and choose your customers, then that business model is unsustainable and shouldn't exist. It's complete crap that I get banned from a casino or betting app simply because I know how to profitably bet on things.
If it's not profitable to serve someone like me, then don't serve the product at all. It's like an all you can eat buffet, you shouldn't be allowed to ban someone from there simply because they eat too much. Set time limits, or whatever else you need to do, but don't market it as "all you can eat".
Traditional businesses don't have this problem, Apple makes the same amount of money regardless of who they sell an iPhone to, it's predatory businesses that have this issue.
>if they can't ban good bettors they'll either swap the odds to juice bad bettors even more or go out of business.
Good, do that then.
>The idea that government can force you to do business with people you don't want to do business with is broad and dangerous.
Governments have been doing stuff like this for a long time. Look at how the legal profession works.
Would you agree that as a guiding principle for good government no one should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to or disallowed from associating with anyone they do want to? That's the fundamental right that's in conflict with the idea of not being allowed to ban successful bettors. In the US we've decided that the insidiousness of class-based discrimination merits an exception to that idea, but overall free association rules the day. You as a business or a consumer are free to do business or not with anyone you want to or don't, and that's how it should be afaic.