0

We provide NYC Executive Protection and discreet personal protection for VIP’s and any person in New York City who feels their security may be at risk or they need close protection.

Source: http://www.nycexecutiveprotection.net/

Say someone forks the cash intending on paying a team of high-level, armed security workers/mercenaries to accompany them for a day. Assuming the person who does this has no real security at risk, would this be illegal if they were still insistent on paying (the client) and the service (security) provided? Say someone does this who isn't a mega public figure or person facing major threats for their safety -- would the service still be provided legally, assuming they are paid?

In other (short) words, security for no reason -- the person would not be in any danger whatsoever.

They say they provide the service to those who "feel their security may be at risk," but does that mean they won't provide the service avec pay, regardless of whomever is asking for the service?

They make it seem like they'd only provide service to mega public figures, like Beyoncé.

Improve this question
3
  • For example, I can afford their services, but I'm not a huge celebrity, and do not need security (nor do I really want it either, honestly). I'm just wondering if their or any similar service's rejection to me would possibly lead to something in the grounds of legal action for refusing to provide a service from which I can afford, even if I may not need it, however you want to distinguish that.
    – SeneJerry
    Commented Dec 2, 2016 at 5:49
  • Any question about law needs to specify a jurisdiction...
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Dec 2, 2016 at 8:07
  • NateEldredge I would guess New York City USA. @ChargeofCoats are you asking if the guards can say no? Or if Joe can pay people to take a walk with him? Or if those guards will be given as much leeway for intimidating or interfering with people as celebrities' guards are?
    – user4460
    Commented Dec 2, 2016 at 17:59

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

If they used one of the various protected categories (sex, race, religion... depends on the jurisdiction since there are federal, state and local versions of anti-discrimination laws) to deny service to a client, that would be a problem. However that does not mean that it is per se discriminatory to deny service to a person who has a religion or doesn't have a religion – the prohibition is against using the protected characteristic as the basis for the business decision. The law in fact would prevent accepting a client on that basis as well as rejecting, or charging different rates. Now that we have discriminatory practices out of the way, they are allowed to take on any client they want. If they demand proof that a person faces a threat, that is their right; if they don't care about there actually being a threat and want to take on a babysitting job, they can also do that.

Improve this answer
8
  • babysitting?>>> The way I see it is that a business offers a service to make money. If they turn down any money, they lose money; so it would be hard to grasp the idea that they'd reject service to anyone who could afford it. You won't see many business turning away money, regardless of the person it comes from. So it's pretty puzzling to think a security firm would deny providing a service to someone just because they aren't necessarily in need of security -- a subject of debate because only very few people truly need round the clock security.
    – SeneJerry
    Commented Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26
  • Money talks, they say -- it doesn't matter whom is speaking if it's green.
    – SeneJerry
    Commented Dec 2, 2016 at 6:33
  • If you can afford a service -- any service -- it makes no sense to reject that offer because a business has the goal of making money, plain and simple. Any offer rejected is money lost. What sane business chooses to lose money? A service paid is a service offered -- that's all there is to it.
    – SeneJerry
    Commented Dec 2, 2016 at 6:37
  • 3
    Recall we are talking about law here; other aspects of the question are not in the scope of this site. Maybe you do not think it is logical for a business to refuse a customer, but the answer is correct: the law allows them to do so in most cases if they want to. And I can certainly imagine reasons why they might want to: perhaps they think it is bad for their reputation, or for the morale of their employees, to protect people who don't need it. Maybe they have limited resources and want to prioritize customers at greatest risk. Etc.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Dec 2, 2016 at 8:06
  • 5
    Discrimination needs not only be based on sex, gender, race, etc. Yet it is only those kinds that are illegal, at least under US law. Comcast could legally respond to your call the way you suggest; it might be bad for business, but that is their decision. You couldn't sue them.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Commented Dec 2, 2016 at 8:08

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .