Are you asking a policy question, or is this a rhetorical question and you're making a point that there are already cases where not taking cash is an accepted practice?

I don't see a need to ban it because it's fairly unlikely that someone can both afford a Lazy Bear ticket and also be unbanked.

But if you take the nuance out of this question and forced me to choose, then yes, I would say that Lazy Bear should be required to offer a cash-based way to buy tickets.

I'm sure Lazy Bear can come up with a coherent way to accept cash, as can all these other stores.

Your argument is a bit lazy though, right? The point is that cash itself says you have to accept it for "all debts public and private" and as an equitable society we have an incentive to make sure that is true. Out of hand dismissals of a coherent argument do not help us learn more; they only serve to make you feel good about being smarter than some other people.

If you go into a store, they can reject you for any reason (unless it's due to being a member of a protected class). Cash must be accepted to settle debts, but if I refuse to serve you, there is no debt. It's legal for stores to say "we don't accept $100 bills" and it's legal to say "we don't accept cash". However, if you eat dinner, THEN pay, you have a debt, and cash must be accepted.

Totally, and that is why I support a ban on cashless stores, to remedy this loophole

Would you also support a ban on stores that don't accept $100 bills? What about stores that refuse to accept payment only in pennies? The issue is in those cases that $100 bills make them targets for robbery and therefore cause undue burden on those stores. In fact, the same could be said of cash in general over other forms of payment. From what I've heard, China's mostly cashless system is a dream for both consumers and stores.

You make a lot of arguments here, most of which I won't touch (especially saying China is "a dream for both consumers and stores").

But to answer your question: no, we should not have 0 bounds on what is acceptable, and there should be some guardrails to make sure that the pedants in all of us don't take over, and that our economy doesn't end up running on pennies (not that they would, that argument is marginal at best). However, not accepting cash is a problem of a different magnitude than not accepting some annoying forms of cash. I support a ban on cashless stores, but, yes, like you pointed out, with some caveats on what they have to support and what they don't.

> cash itself says you have to accept it for "all debts public and private" and as an equitable society we have an incentive to make sure that is true

Restaurants have to accept cash. When you order food you incur a debt. That's what "all debts" on cash means. Buying things in a store is different. No debt is incurred.

Such bans are a cosmetic solution to poverty. They give the illusion of dealing with the problem. But they solve nothing. Prices will be a little higher for all San Franciscans (handling cash, even intermittently, is risky and expensive). Meanwhile, the poor will have no more income or opportunities. But hey, they will have the theoretical ability to buy a plush toy from an Amazon store. (Assuming such stores still make economic sense to deploy.)

Toll roads as well.

Even toll roads without people accepting payment there, can be paid for in cash afterwards, at least in California

https://thetollroads.com/help/faq/386

Looks like one location in Irvine is the only place you can pay cash. So I guess technically yes, practically though?

Oh, and it's open : M-F, 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Those specific toll roads are only in Orange County, so having one location in Irvine isn't a big deal. Its not a statewide network.

Are there toll roads in the US that don't accept cash?

Many toll roads in the US are being switched to automated systems that either scan a device attached to your windshield or license plate, allowing you to either prepay into an account or pay afterward.

> Are there toll roads in the US that don't accept cash?

One example, FastTrack express lanes in the Bay area (unlike the lanes on bridges, there is no cash-accepting substitute.)

The deontological argument is that there is a rule requiring vendors to accept cash, whereas there isn't a rule limiting the max price they can charge.

I, too, find it easier to apply consequentialism, but bureaucracies work well when they have clear rules.

If you can't buy tickets with cash ... sure, sounds good.

Yes. Accept cash, or do business elsewhere.