Sure, a 3rd party replacement could leak. That's a risk the buyer takes, and it's not warranted by the manufacturer. But even then, manufacturers don't get carte-blanche for that, either. I can use aftermarket air filters and oil filters on my car, even aftermarket parts, and if the problem isn't directly connected to the aftermarket part, they can't deny warranty service. Same with appliances.
Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.
In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.
While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision, your warranty need not cover use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate for your product. The following is an example of a permissible provision that excludes coverage of such things.
While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.
So... yeah. No legitimate reason for it, and it's unconscionable to try to justify it.
Is a restaurant a service provider? A hotel? Home repair? Plumber? Electrician?
There's no difference between a photographer and a restaurant as far as a service provider. If you take advantage of incorporation and all the benefits society gives to encourage business, you can't section out society that you don't like. That leads to people who can't get services because nobody in town will give them.
These things do change over time, but there's a reason that homosexuality, race, and religion are protected classes. They are things that people discriminate for, and until that stops being the case, there are limits on business practice vs. private speech and action.
I'm wondering, would you also support a photographer refusing to photograph black people? People of any color? Redheads?
I agree that photography is speech, except when you do it for hire, the rules change a bit. The problems come like they did back in the 60's, where there's no local photographer that will take pictures of gays. There's no business that will serve them. If homosexuality were not a protected class, this would be a different conversation. But the laws exist because otherwise these minorities experience quite real persecution. Maybe in 50 years we can revisit it, but right now, there's a societal reason for it, it ensures that everyone can access the same services regardless of their personal attributes.
Not sure it's so much anti-consumer as it's the malaise of "Anything that's good for business is good for America" that we've got now. That business/corporate interests overrule all, because they're producers. The rest of us are just peons, wallets to be emptied, with legal arm wrenching if necessary.
I think you underestimate how self centered we are. We don't need external validation for it, we've convinced ourselves so well that we don't even look elsewhere for validation. The only way you can really hurt America is in the pocketbook.
It's not the fact that they were bikers. It's that they had 50+ 911 calls about that group all acting to intimidate and obstruct traffic, and basically stir shit up. They were in all relevant ways a violent gang.
Bikers are fine. Bikers acting like they did in this video, in other videos of this same gang are not. That you can't tell the difference shows your ignorance.
Doesn't really matter. He was surrounded by an obviously associated group of people that were behaving in an obviously threatening manner. He had every reason to fear for his safety. He'd have been justified if it were 50 people on foot, too.
That's blaming the victim. It's not because "bikers". He's not in the wrong when he has a very legitimate (as was proven by the subsequent beating) fear for himself and his passengers. He had the right to protect himself from a gang surrounding and stopping him in the middle of a city street.
Surrounding someone in a threatening and dangerous manner? Damn straight it'd be ok.
If they're dodging in and out of traffic, stopping in front of a vehicle on a street, they're making a hazardous and intimidating situation. Did you not see why the car stopped 30 seconds into the video? That they surrounded and gang pressed him into it taking advantage of the fact that he DIDN'T want to run any of them over?