This is an excellent example of how a well-meaning regulation is counter-productive.
How can a theater insist on photo identification of the person buying the tickets says the attendees don’t have such ID. I’ve read any number of impassioned posts on Medium where people say that requiring photo ID to vote is discriminatory. Surely photo ID requirements shouldn’t be higher to go to the theater than to vote.
Even if we accept that only people with valid driver’s licenses or passports should be eligible to see Hamilton, why is it the theater’s responsibility to create and maintain all these records. Who is going to pay for the costs of collecting and maintaining the data? Why is it the theater’s problem to solve? Does this apply to all theaters or just ones with popular shows?
Let’s suppose that a scalper buys 10 tickets in the name of John Smith and resells them. When the purchasers of these tickets show up for the show a week later, don’t have photo ID with John Smith’s name on it and are therefore denied entry, who pays for the lawyers when the theater is sued? Who pays the damages award if a suit is successful?
What happens if a person buys a ticket with every intention to attend, but is sick or out of town on an unexpected business trip? Why should the ticket be unused instead of transferred to someone who can attend the show? Does the theater need to be provided with a doctor’s note verifying that the original purchaser is ill and cannot attend?
And so on. The cost and inconvenience to the theater rise as a result of the well-intentioned regulation, without any corresponding benefit.