> Most find that a useful shorthand in achieving concise and clear discussion, that helps to avoid overly formal and long grandiose Victorian circumlocution, without finding it vague waffle. Something I am eternally thankful for.
This is what I'm talking about. You are exaggerating to absurd extremes. No one is using "overly formal and long Victorian circumlocution" here. And I literally pointed out where you explicitly said things that run counter to your claim that you didn't mean those things you said.
> "most customer-centric company"
This one can technically probably be measured along some metric. A company that is actively hostile towards its customers can be said to be less customer-centric than one that doesn't.
> Quite, and yet you write "What if all I have is corn? I'm a customer."
This is disingenuous. You are the one arguing on the basis of anyone in the shop being a customer. I'm showing you, from your perspective, how quickly the adage breaks down. It doesn't matter that it doesn't cover every, single incident. The problem is that it doesn't even really cover most incidents.
> you're not offering legal tender or any other form of recognised currency.
That's not a requirement to be a customer.
> As the article points out 7.5% in the US are unbanked. 12% aren't on the net.
And? Not being able to go to one burrito shop is hardly going to harm anyone. Not to mention, this is how things change. That 7.5% is going to go down. There's a large portion of people who don't receive any sort of cash. They can't be "customers" either. What happens if they want something?
And I know what you're going to say: Yeah, but money has to be earned. No shit. And you have to do something someone else feels is worthwhile in order to earn that money. It is inherently discriminatory. But we accept it.
> Legal tender is currently cash
You have that backwards. Cash is currently legal tender. But so are electronic payments. Like someone else pointed out, electronic payments are currently the currency in general use.
> I would encourage requiring businesses to accept legal tender (subject to any legislated limitations on paying large amounts in small change that many countries already limit).
Give with one hand, take with the other. Already you accept the premise that a business can restrict the forms in which you pay. You buy into that. You just think the line should be drawn where you're comfortable with it.
> You're not yet a customer and you're not offering legal tender or any other form of recognised currency. Which is why it is clearly absurd and takes the discussion away from the actual topic in TFA - the rise, and potential discrimination, of cashless.
These statements are in conflict with each other and that's what people are trying to tell you. Discrimination you accept is still discrimination.
> That's a far larger and problematic discrimination than "no hats". I won't be discriminated against, just inconvenienced.
By not being allowed in the establishment? You can't just call discrimination you're comfortable with "inconvenience" and pretend it's not discrimination.