But say you're a concreter, you've worked with a client who's an absolute prick - doesn't do anything illegal exactly but he's a total stickler with your work, calls you all the time with stupid questions, tries to find problems everywhere to justify a discount (despite you having hypothetically done the job perfectly), pays as late as possible. Shouldn't you have the right to not take on another job for this guy?

▲

AngryData 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Can't you price that into their bill, or require payment before services? That is what most construction companies already do, if you are a pain in the ass they charge you more and more until you either don't want it any more or they are satisfied that their pay is worth your trouble, and if payment is potentially questionable they make you pay beforehand.

▲

bfg_9k 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're right - but in that instance the justification in my mind (and what you'd presumably argue if challenged legally) is that they're difficult to work with - which I'm okay with.

But not wanting to concrete that person's driveway because they're in the army, or because they're a politician or whatever else along those lines I think shouldn't be allowed.

	▲	s1mplicissimus 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Okay, I will now say "they are difficult to work with" or "i don't have time" every time a client walks up that I don't want to serve. Infact, that's exactly what a lot of handymen say already to avoid the irritation associated with declining a job. I hope you see how your "ought" will be difficult to implement in practice

▲

cwillu 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

None of this has anything to do with companies having rights. You as a person can choose to not to business with another person.

	▲	joegibbs a day ago \| parent [-]
		But given that companies are made up of people, where does the line get drawn? If your concreting business has a couple of other guys working does it still count?