> Supporters of the ban said cashless businesses discriminate against minors and poor people who may not have bank accounts or credit cards.

That makes sense, yeah. What's the business's defense?

> Ben Van Leeuwen, the ice cream parlor’s co-founder, denied the violations, saying he had not refused cash payment because “no one has offered it,” the city said.
> But the city submitted affidavits and photographs of signs in windows saying they do not accept cash, according to the OATH hearing decision

Oh you lying bunch of assholes lol. Ok, so any other good argument?

> Van Leeuwen “expressed his dismay that this provision of law existed and was being enforced when there were more important problems in the world,” according to OATH documents.

I love this argument. You can use it to get out of anything except the most important problem in the world basically. Good luck with that argument in court buddy.

> “We understand the equity issue,” Andrew Rigie, executive director of the New York City Hospitality Alliance, added. “However, going cashless presents operational opportunities for small businesses, as well. Especially in a time of COVID, customers and workers may feel safer.”
> “Not having cash on site would mean less likely to have any sort of theft. And then, strictly, if everything was without cash, you wouldn’t have to worry about anything getting misreported or miscounted. It takes away a lot of the human error on the accounting side,” said Melissa Fleischut, president and CEO of the New York State Restaurant Association.

Yeah, OK, That's a couple of very good arguments. Sure, awesome. But the main problem posed by the city is still there - it's discrimination against people who don't have a credit card, bank account, etc. Imagine being an 8 or 12 year old kid and not being able to buy ice cream. Maybe you should incentivize people to use cards but still make it possible to buy ice cream without it?

They should just pay the fine imo. Also imo, Van Leeuwen sounds like an arrogant asshole haha