"The store owner agrees to adhere to the Jim Crow laws at the time they sign their articles of incorporation, or their business licenses. If they want to serve black and white people in the same space, they're free to talk their political representatives about it, or operate in a different jurisdiction."
Repeating that the law is the law is not a productive contribution to a discussion about the merit of the laws.
Laws attempt to balance the interests of the individual with those of the community, and can be influenced by the participation of the community. Jim Crow lasted as long as it did because the people that it harmed never got a vote.
For such a law to be unjust, you'll have to show some evidence of people being negatively affected by it. The only counterpoints offered by the article are concerns from Amazon, about a store that does not even exist in Philly yet.
Businesses continue to have the right to refuse service to anyone. Just don't tell them it's because they brought cash. I don't recall Jim Crow laws having such loopholes.
The upscale cashless places mentioned in the article already have most if not all of their customers using credit cards, so this law won't be losing them any customers. Although as the article says, their cashiers may have to learn how to add and subtract change every now and then.
Then ... I don't think there can be any real meeting of the minds on this :-/
I haven't stopped going to that ramen shop, and I often pay for things with a debit card anyway, but it feels wrong not to have the option to use cash.
I know that banking in the US is both weird and antiquated compared to the rest of the developed world, and I also know that the unbanked population is relatively high, but surely most low-income people can own a debit card and pay without cash, no?
I usually feel like an outsider since I generally carry no cash in an area where it feels like everyone pays for everything with cash.
Yes, and it's up to the community what kind of business practices to accept.