Ah thanks for clarifying! If this whole incident comes down to payment type (as the top comment indicates) then we should probably screen all poor service experiences through filters like that. Like with computer bugs, someone should be able to reproduce them while troubleshooting before jumping to possible fixes.
That said, it's disingenuous of companies to give the wrong reason(s) for why they deny service. If companies can't give an exact reason in writing, then that's the part that feels like discrimination to me. It would be like discriminating on the basis of gender/race/etc and then giving a bogus reason as to why.
And then if they fall back to the common "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" like the signs we see on storefronts, we should be able to hire a competitor instead. But with so many companies controlling > 50% of every market, that's not always a viable option. So those companies specifically should move to the top of the list for antitrust investigation.
Ironically, the right of refusal seems to be part of anti-discrimination laws:
That said, it's disingenuous of companies to give the wrong reason(s) for why they deny service. If companies can't give an exact reason in writing, then that's the part that feels like discrimination to me. It would be like discriminating on the basis of gender/race/etc and then giving a bogus reason as to why.
And then if they fall back to the common "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" like the signs we see on storefronts, we should be able to hire a competitor instead. But with so many companies controlling > 50% of every market, that's not always a viable option. So those companies specifically should move to the top of the list for antitrust investigation.
Ironically, the right of refusal seems to be part of anti-discrimination laws:
https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service-to-a...
So I guess this is more of a monopoly issue than a discrimination issue.