This thread had been dormant since 2011, before your post, and the person who made that post hasn’t been active here since 2011, so you aren’t likely to get a direct response from them.
That said, there is no legal “right” – in the U.S. Constitution, or in any state law (as far as I know) – to be able to buy alcohol, just as there is no legal right to be able to drive a motor vehicle, etc. It’s a topic that comes up here on the board from time to time, with someone saying “I have a right to {x}” and someone else points out that, legally, no, you don’t have such a right, because “right” means a very specific thing, as far as laws go.
I suspect that that is what the long-gone poster is referring to.
So I’m assuming the OP is talking about using it to prove your identity, not prove you are qualified to drive.
In that case logically it should absolutely be valid ID. Plenty of things might have happened in the last 2 days that mean it’s no longer legal for me to drive. But I’m still me, and the state issued ID with my picture and name proves that just as much now as it does 2 days ago.
Of course if we are talking about using the ID to buy a drink then logic has absolutely nothing to with that particular bit if US law, so there’s no point bringing it up. It’s just bonkers in so many ways
I gather that some government liquor stores in Canada are experimenting with restricted entry, and scanning ID - not so much for age (still an issue) but because like other shoplifting epidemics in the news recently, liquor stores are a prime target. So the store scans your ID on entry and verifies your identity, making it much harder to anonymously commit wholesale theft. They know who you are, and can bar you in future and send the police after you. Plus, due to lax juvenile laws in Canada, barring entry at the door based on age works better when normally the person would be caught at the cash register. Many of the theives are juveniles, knowing they face much lesser penalties if caught - and egged on by older gang members. For some reason, shoplifters don’t stop at the registers. Sad that it has come to this… but the courts are unwilling to dispense timely justice. Justice delayed is justice denied. Quite often offenders in the news are also charged with “violating a condition of release…”
So an expired ID that is no longer useful to the owner is at greater risk of being appropriated by someone else who bears a resemblance. Simpler to require all ID to be valid.
I said this earlier -
“The answer is simple - a store owner is not obliged to sell to anyone, can deny service to anyone, provided the reason for denial is not due to their membership in a protected class.”
So whether you get served by the store owner is a privilege that can be denied you for whatever reason, not a right that one is entitled to.
Except when a store owner refuses to serve a sober middle aged customer with the money to pay, because their ID is 2 days expired that is absolutely not just a business owner using their right to refuse service to anyone. They are refusing out of fear of being punished by the state if they accept it. No business owner would do so otherwise (and no business owner outside the US would do so)
While it’s not some fundamental right like the right to free speech. It’s an obvious way the US is less free and the government is more intrusive into private business than any other western country. The fact that me, as a middle aged man who could not possibly be mistaken for a 20 year old, needs to carry my “ausweis” and have it inspected several times in the course of a night, is an impingement of my personal freedom that would not happen anywhere else.
I am 100% not going to say that no state has a law that businesses cannot accept expired ID - I know my state requires valid ID (and only specific types of ID ) as proof of age. But there are no state laws that I have ever heard * of that require the business to see proof of age for every single customer. Sometimes there’s just a requirement that they not serve/sell to anyone under a specified age . Other times there’s a requirement that anyone who appears to be under some specified age ( such as 30 ) must be proofed. But when an establishment proofs someone who is clearly middle-aged (or even older) , that’s because it’s their own policy to proof everyone . There are multiple reasons for that policy - everything from not trusting employees not to make a mistake to wanting to avoid an argument with the guy who is asked for proof after I was not asked for it to fearing accusations of illegally discriminating in deciding who needs to show ID. Those are good reasons to have that policy , but that’s different from being a legal requirement.
* I’ve been in lots of conversations (here and in real life) about ID requirements and although there have been plenty of cashiers/bartenders who basically said " don’t yell at me it’s my employer’s policy ", none has ever said “state law requires me to proof absolutely everyone, even people who I know personally who are 80 years old”
It’s not a state law but the ABC in the San Francisco will definitely penalize establishments that do not. Although not IDing everyone is not punishable in itself, if there are infractions it will make the punishments worse.
It’s certainly true that establishments checking ID from everyone is nothing to do with a business owners right to refuse service to anyone, and everything to do with intrusive government regulations
Yes, so they won’t be penalized for not IDing everyone as long as they don’t end up selling alcohol to someone underage. In which case they are being penalized for the underage sale , not a failure to ID everyone. Which is what I said, that businesses establish the policy of IDing everyone for a variety of reasons , including a fear that employees will make mistakes - like not IDing someone who turns out to be underage.
But the failure to ID everyone will increase the penalty. So it’s entirely true to say that me, a middle aged man, having to prove my identity with government issued paperwork to get a drink is the direct result of overly intrusive government regulations and not the business owners legitimate right to choose who they serve.
It’s also true that me being refused service because my id expired two days ago is utterly illogical (I didn’t magically get 30 years younger when my id expired last week). And again that’s the result of the way the American government intrudes into the private business of me and the establishments that I frequent. Its nothing to do with the right of those establishments to choose who they serve, it’s the result of those establishments being in fear of being punished by the government
I just got in the mail a replacement for my driver’s licence that expires on my birthday in January. It was valid from the day of issue so I currently have two valid licences (except I have already destroyed the old one), but it also said it is valid only after paying the yearly fee. It expires in Jan. 2033. It contains the photo used in the previous one, although I could get a new photo if my appearance changes (it could–all I would have to do is shave). But the point is, it is valid as ID for 8 years, but valid for driving only so long as I pay the annual fee. And except for the expiration date it is identical to the old one.
BTW, it has both a UPC code and a QR code, but no magnetic stripe.
No business, especially a bar or other place that serves alcohol, is required to accept your ID even if it is valid. It is up to the server.
Arizona has an insanely long driver’s licence date, something like when you turn 65 it expires. I have seen them rejected as ID, perfectly legal but the bartender looked at it and said, “nope.”
Perfectly sober, obviously legal age, proper ID, they do not have to take it. Up to the discretion of the server.
My 90-year-old stepmother got carded in the Idaho airport once for not buying a drink about 10 years ago because my dad ordered a beer The rule was - if one person orders a drink, and the other in the party does not order at least a soft drink, the restaurant must card that person (for fear they are sharing the alcoholic drink with the buyer and are under age). The logic of “card everyone” was to avoid any risk of an age discrimination complaints - “I’m 25 and you carded me, but not the other fellow who’s 30”. After all, the whole problem is that without valid ID you can’t be sure.
The server was intensely apologetic, but it was company policy following state rules. Fortunately, they had current ID.
(Can you board an aircaft with expired ID?)
The store owner will refuse service because the state will require proof of age before serving. The owner may make an exception, but then the next person will demand the same exception, etc. or file an age discrimination case. So simplest is to follow the state’s published guidelines - “the following list are acceptable ID, if the person presents one of these and resembles the picture, then the store owner cannot be held liable for sale.”; the lst states “valid ID” for reasons mentioned over and over above; and also “if these rules are applied to everyone equally, you can’t get in trouble with the Human Rights Tribunal”.
Sometimes following rules seems stupid, but also sometimes skipping the rules can go spectacularly wrong.
You are completely wrong about this. The idea that anyone who doesn’t look like a teenager (let alone an obviously middle aged person) would have to show ID to get a drink is entirely an American thing.
I moved to the states in my late twenties and had not been asked for ID for years in the UK (twenty years later I’m still required to show ID here)
This is what I am saying I have never heard of - I have never heard of a state that requires proof of age before serving , as in you will lose your liquor license or get fined or be arrested for serving an actual 60 year old without asking for ID.
And what the server didn’t say is that it was required by state law. He said it was company policy. There’s a difference between a company establishing policies that almost eliminate the possibility of making a mistake that violates a state law and the state law itself requiring it.
I’m in the US and the only times I’ve been proofed since I was 25 were at baseball stadiums, concert venues etc . Not liquor stores, supermarkets, restaurants or bars. Might happen at an airport, but I’ve never bought a drink at one. Never been proofed in Canada either.
It should also be pointed out that the reason business owners do stupid illogical things like refusing expired IDs and carding people who are clearly more than twice the legal drinking age, is not that they think they are logical. They would love to be more logical about it but the the ABC (alcohol board of control) will actually spend your taxes to send undercover agents to check up on businesses and penalize them if they catch them being logical
I bought some booze at a provincial liquor store in Quebec last week and certainly was not carded.
Many years ago, I was walking with my grandfather and we passed a taproom. He wanted to go for a drink, but I had to wait outside. I was not allowed to enter the establishment. I was likely around 10 at the time.
I tried once when I moved to a new state and only had an expired out-of-state DL as ID, except for my valid passport. It wasn’t so much a bar as a place with some Keno machines, where you could buy and drink a beer…OK…I guess it was a bar, but a tiny one.
Yeah, I was kind of pissed off, actually. “Oh no, honey, we need to see a…” “But, but…passport…”
Ditto. SSN always, but I’m about 99% sure I never carried around my SS card…wait…that sounds wrong…well, the one without the armbands. I’m pretty old and as a youngling did a fair amount of little jobs during summer breaks and all that.
Always did the paperwork…the I-9, I guess. Never needed my SS card (well, piece of tatty paper in my instance).
Yeah, at about the same vintage year this post was made…the TSA took my expired DL (I don’t think I had my passport with me for some reason…it was a long time ago!), but had to go to enhanced interrogation…which in my case just meant waiting in a longer line.