4 ms·

Absolutely shameful for PayPal. This is not about equality and inclusion, but rather about using government violence to force people to support that which they

by zeveb 11y ago

Absolutely shameful for PayPal. This is not about equality and inclusion, but rather about using government violence to force people to support that which they oppose. A black baker should not be required to bake a cake for the KKK; a homosexual florist should not be required to provide flowers to the Westboro Baptist Church; neither should a Christian baker or florist or software developer be forced to employ his art and skill in service of something which he opposes, and which opposes his belief system.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
But PayPal should be required to exist in NC?
- zeveb 11y ago
  Oh, PayPal may do whatever they want, including advocating for the violent coercion of conscientious objectors, but I won't applaud them for doing that.
  - saboot 11y ago
    You have no understanding of what was actually passed
throwaway5752 11y ago
That would be interesting if it were in any way relevant to what HB2 were about. * it overturns a local law regarding who can use a bathroom, and removes the ability for anyone but the state to legislate that (takes power away from cities and counties) * it removes the ability of city and counties to enforce hiring standards on government contractors (minimum wage, discrimination practices, safety standards) in any way whatsoever. * it effectively undoes the state employment discrimination laws for all classes of employees. You have to file discrimination charges in federal courts (of which their are fewer, have higher filing fees, and shorter windows to file under federal law). Since you seem generally ignorant of the law, this is a good explanation :http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article68401147.html http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/ar... It is particularly deplorable that they demonized transsexuals to pass the less popular/otherwise more difficult to pass portions of the bill. It was clearly just a way of threatening people in primaries if they didn't run against the bill that was passed in a highly unusual emergency session. But... assuming you know all this now, what you propose is shameful. PayPal is under no obligation to 1) not have ethics/standards at a corporate level or 2) hire people and open facilities in a state it doesn't want to do business in. The bakers/florists can do whatever they want (and could before/after this bill), but they cannot benefit from the payroll taxes collected by NC from the PayPal employees that will now be hired elsewhere. Shame on you for either not thinking about your argument or being dishonest. It's an important issue and should be distracted from/intentionally obfuscated.
- alistproducer2 11y ago
  It's pretty clear the OP is a troll, but at least we got your enlightening response from it. The law is even more distasteful than I knew.
  - throwaway5752 11y ago
    I know, but it's a tough call between feeding a troll and applying sunlight as a disinfectant. Thank you, I'm glad I can help share how awful (even moreso, the more you dig into what it does and how it was passed) this bill is.
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    Yeah, no kidding about the enlightening response. This guy has the worst username ever ("throwaway5752"); he's one of the best and most informative posters I've ever seen here.
    - throwaway5752 11y ago
      Thanks :) It was throwaway at first, but I've grown fond of it.
      - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 11y ago
        Easily the worst username.
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > It's pretty clear the OP is a troll I certainly don't believe I'm a troll; I think that I've posted reasonably compelling (if brief) arguments in favour of tolerance and against using the violence of the State against dissenters, and have decried PayPal's advocacy for intolerance and State violence.
gecko 11y ago
There is a difference here, which I think you're aware of, but ignoring. The legal concept that we're discussing here is something called a protected class. Protected classes are generally things that are intrinsic to who you are--age, skin color, gender, and so on. While I am aware that some people do not agree with this statement, the majority, both within the medical community and outside it, acknowledge at this point that you do not "decide" to be gay; you are gay. Just like I do not decide to be white, a man, or have blond hair. Conversely, you absolutely do decide to be a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, or a member of the KKK; those are views you are taking that are not inherently something you cannot change. These can and should be treated differently, and we do treat them that way in law.
coco1989 11y ago
What is your point? That being awful is ok? This is a religious thing in this case so a government should not be in the business of protecting one religion or any religious belief - or we should discuss how far to go with it - this ... is too far
- zeveb 11y ago
  > What is your point? That being awful is ok? No, that being awful (by some folks' lights) should be legal — i.e., that violent force (which is the ultimate backstop of any law) should not be employed to force people to be nice to one another. > This is a religious thing in this case so a government should not be in the business of protecting one religion or any religious belief Government shouldn't be involved, period. If someone wishes to do business with someone else, good (or bad) for him; if not, good (or bad) for him all the same. No-one should be forced to do business with someone he dislikes: not PayPal, and no-one else either.
  - gstn 11y ago
    So, let me understand: do you think that a person running a lunch counter should be able to refuse to do business with someone because of, let's say, their skin color?
    - zeveb 11y ago
      > do you think that a person running a lunch counter should be able to refuse to do business with someone because of, let's say, their skin color? I think such a person would be wrong, but that neither you nor I have the right to beat him for refusing to serve; indeed, if we use violence to compel him to work, then we have reduced him to a state of involuntary servitude — i.e., slavery. So, let me understand: do you think people should be beaten and killed because they refuse to do business with someone?
  - kstrauser 11y ago
    > Government shouldn't be involved, period. If someone wishes to do business with someone else, good (or bad) for him; if not, good (or bad) for him all the same. First, that case law was settled over 50 years ago when we ruled segregation illegal. Contrary to your wishes, that ship has sailed. Second, businesses are permitted to serve the public and subject to lots of laws. You can't say "I don't want to comply with the health code, and it's unfair that the government is using violent force to make me wash my oven!" Similarly, all three branches of government have definitively ruled that you can't refuse to do business with someone based on their attributes (race, gender, religion, etc.). There's no meaningful line you can draw between "I don't sell cake to gay people" and "I don't sell cake to black people". Both are explicitly illegal in most places and morally reprehensible in all.
coco1989 11y ago
go back to breitbart sev - the ladies are waiting

by zeveb 11y ago

jsprogrammer 11y ago

But PayPal should be required to exist in NC?

zeveb 11y ago
Oh, PayPal may do whatever they want, including advocating for the violent coercion of conscientious objectors, but I won't applaud them for doing that.
- saboot 11y ago
  You have no understanding of what was actually passed

throwaway5752 11y ago

That would be interesting if it were in any way relevant to what HB2 were about. * it overturns a local law regarding who can use a bathroom, and removes the ability for anyone but the state to legislate that (takes power away from cities and counties) * it removes the ability of city and counties to enforce hiring standards on government contractors (minimum wage, discrimination practices, safety standards) in any way whatsoever. * it effectively undoes the state employment discrimination laws for all classes of employees. You have to file discrimination charges in federal courts (of which their are fewer, have higher filing fees, and shorter windows to file under federal law). Since you seem generally ignorant of the law, this is a good explanation :http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article68401147.html http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/ar... It is particularly deplorable that they demonized transsexuals to pass the less popular/otherwise more difficult to pass portions of the bill. It was clearly just a way of threatening people in primaries if they didn't run against the bill that was passed in a highly unusual emergency session. But... assuming you know all this now, what you propose is shameful. PayPal is under no obligation to 1) not have ethics/standards at a corporate level or 2) hire people and open facilities in a state it doesn't want to do business in. The bakers/florists can do whatever they want (and could before/after this bill), but they cannot benefit from the payroll taxes collected by NC from the PayPal employees that will now be hired elsewhere. Shame on you for either not thinking about your argument or being dishonest. It's an important issue and should be distracted from/intentionally obfuscated.

alistproducer2 11y ago
It's pretty clear the OP is a troll, but at least we got your enlightening response from it. The law is even more distasteful than I knew.
- throwaway5752 11y ago
  I know, but it's a tough call between feeding a troll and applying sunlight as a disinfectant. Thank you, I'm glad I can help share how awful (even moreso, the more you dig into what it does and how it was passed) this bill is.
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  Yeah, no kidding about the enlightening response. This guy has the worst username ever ("throwaway5752"); he's one of the best and most informative posters I've ever seen here.
  - throwaway5752 11y ago
    Thanks :) It was throwaway at first, but I've grown fond of it.
    - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 11y ago
      Easily the worst username.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > It's pretty clear the OP is a troll I certainly don't believe I'm a troll; I think that I've posted reasonably compelling (if brief) arguments in favour of tolerance and against using the violence of the State against dissenters, and have decried PayPal's advocacy for intolerance and State violence.

gecko 11y ago

There is a difference here, which I think you're aware of, but ignoring. The legal concept that we're discussing here is something called a protected class. Protected classes are generally things that are intrinsic to who you are--age, skin color, gender, and so on. While I am aware that some people do not agree with this statement, the majority, both within the medical community and outside it, acknowledge at this point that you do not "decide" to be gay; you are gay. Just like I do not decide to be white, a man, or have blond hair. Conversely, you absolutely do decide to be a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, or a member of the KKK; those are views you are taking that are not inherently something you cannot change. These can and should be treated differently, and we do treat them that way in law.

coco1989 11y ago

What is your point? That being awful is ok? This is a religious thing in this case so a government should not be in the business of protecting one religion or any religious belief - or we should discuss how far to go with it - this ... is too far

zeveb 11y ago
> What is your point? That being awful is ok? No, that being awful (by some folks' lights) should be legal — i.e., that violent force (which is the ultimate backstop of any law) should not be employed to force people to be nice to one another. > This is a religious thing in this case so a government should not be in the business of protecting one religion or any religious belief Government shouldn't be involved, period. If someone wishes to do business with someone else, good (or bad) for him; if not, good (or bad) for him all the same. No-one should be forced to do business with someone he dislikes: not PayPal, and no-one else either.
- gstn 11y ago
  So, let me understand: do you think that a person running a lunch counter should be able to refuse to do business with someone because of, let's say, their skin color?
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > do you think that a person running a lunch counter should be able to refuse to do business with someone because of, let's say, their skin color? I think such a person would be wrong, but that neither you nor I have the right to beat him for refusing to serve; indeed, if we use violence to compel him to work, then we have reduced him to a state of involuntary servitude — i.e., slavery. So, let me understand: do you think people should be beaten and killed because they refuse to do business with someone?
- kstrauser 11y ago
  > Government shouldn't be involved, period. If someone wishes to do business with someone else, good (or bad) for him; if not, good (or bad) for him all the same. First, that case law was settled over 50 years ago when we ruled segregation illegal. Contrary to your wishes, that ship has sailed. Second, businesses are permitted to serve the public and subject to lots of laws. You can't say "I don't want to comply with the health code, and it's unfair that the government is using violent force to make me wash my oven!" Similarly, all three branches of government have definitively ruled that you can't refuse to do business with someone based on their attributes (race, gender, religion, etc.). There's no meaningful line you can draw between "I don't sell cake to gay people" and "I don't sell cake to black people". Both are explicitly illegal in most places and morally reprehensible in all.

coco1989 11y ago

go back to breitbart sev - the ladies are waiting