5 ms·

Why should the PM be treated differently than anyone else? Just because she's the PM? FB has any right to remove whatever they want from their private property

Why should the PM be treated differently than anyone else? Just because she's the PM? FB has any right to remove whatever they want from their private property.

hga 10y ago
I'm starting to get tired of making this point in some of the many discussions of this topic (most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371), so the last time for a month, I swear: You tell me when I can open a segregated lunch counter, or refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, and I'll consider your argument to have merit. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until Facebook and company are brought to heel under that sort of "public accommodation" approach. See also mabbo's well thought out comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031
- ythl 10y ago
  I still don't understand the gay wedding cake argument. If I'm a baker, why can't I refuse to make certain cakes? I mean, I would never turn away a customer, but if the customer asked me to write obscene things on the cake, don't I have the right to refuse their request? "I'd like to have a rainbow cake" "ok" "with little penises sticking out of it for my gay wedding" "no, sorry." What's wrong with that? It's no different from refusing a straight man's request to have a cake with the outline of a nude woman on it.
  - talmand 10y ago
    The difference is whether you belong to a protected class of people as dictated by the government. Strangely, often the difference in those cases is also how you respond. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "Sorry, I'm too busy to fulfill your request." Likely nothing comes of it. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "No, I don't support your lifestyle and I'll pray for your soul." Lawsuit. Granted, extreme example of a response there. Lesson is, just say no but don't say why.
  - danso 10y ago
    AFAIK, refusal of service is up to the states: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... > Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) contending that Masterpiece had violated this law. Earlier this year, the CCRD ruled that Phillips illegally discriminated against Mullins and Craig. Today’s decision from Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirms that finding. Federal law, however, prohibits discrimination against those seeking housing, employment, credit, or disaster relief.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    You're manufacturing your example. The refusal in a famous case wasn't based on lascivious content, it was based on the people buying the cake. http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate...
    - ythl 10y ago
      Well, in that case I agree. You should not be able to refuse service based on the person, but you should be able to refuse service based on the request.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Where the fuck did you get "with little penises sticking out of it" from? What the hell is wrong with you?
  - mercutio2 10y ago
    To be clear, the case in question involved a baker turning away the customer purely because of who the customer was, nothing about the cake they requested. This is obnoxious, but probably doesn't need to be illegal, so I suspect we agree.
- refurb 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure publishing historic photos isn't protected by civil rights laws.

Why should the PM be treated differently than anyone else? Just because she's the PM? FB has any right to remove whatever they want from their private property.

hga 10y ago

I'm starting to get tired of making this point in some of the many discussions of this topic (most recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457371), so the last time for a month, I swear: You tell me when I can open a segregated lunch counter, or refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, and I'll consider your argument to have merit. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until Facebook and company are brought to heel under that sort of "public accommodation" approach. See also mabbo's well thought out comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462031

ythl 10y ago
I still don't understand the gay wedding cake argument. If I'm a baker, why can't I refuse to make certain cakes? I mean, I would never turn away a customer, but if the customer asked me to write obscene things on the cake, don't I have the right to refuse their request? "I'd like to have a rainbow cake" "ok" "with little penises sticking out of it for my gay wedding" "no, sorry." What's wrong with that? It's no different from refusing a straight man's request to have a cake with the outline of a nude woman on it.
- talmand 10y ago
  The difference is whether you belong to a protected class of people as dictated by the government. Strangely, often the difference in those cases is also how you respond. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "Sorry, I'm too busy to fulfill your request." Likely nothing comes of it. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "No, I don't support your lifestyle and I'll pray for your soul." Lawsuit. Granted, extreme example of a response there. Lesson is, just say no but don't say why.
- danso 10y ago
  AFAIK, refusal of service is up to the states: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... > Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) contending that Masterpiece had violated this law. Earlier this year, the CCRD ruled that Phillips illegally discriminated against Mullins and Craig. Today’s decision from Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirms that finding. Federal law, however, prohibits discrimination against those seeking housing, employment, credit, or disaster relief.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  You're manufacturing your example. The refusal in a famous case wasn't based on lascivious content, it was based on the people buying the cake. http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate...
  - ythl 10y ago
    Well, in that case I agree. You should not be able to refuse service based on the person, but you should be able to refuse service based on the request.
- DanBC 10y ago
  Where the fuck did you get "with little penises sticking out of it" from? What the hell is wrong with you?
- mercutio2 10y ago
  To be clear, the case in question involved a baker turning away the customer purely because of who the customer was, nothing about the cake they requested. This is obnoxious, but probably doesn't need to be illegal, so I suspect we agree.
refurb 10y ago
I'm pretty sure publishing historic photos isn't protected by civil rights laws.