26 ms·

This is a slippery slope I'm happy to walk on. Reasonable people can agree that no safe harbor should exist for Nazis.

zhemao 9y ago
Yes, the 1st amendment protects freedom of association. That is, the freedom of private entities to not do business with Nazis.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mc32 9y ago
  I'm all for not doing business with hate and or terrorist groups but I don't think I'd want to ground it on "freedom of association" basis as anyone could make that same claim for not serving a sub-class of people. Maybe protestants refuse to serve atheists, or vice versa, for example.
  - zhemao 9y ago
    Religion, race, gender, etc. are protected classes. Political ideology is not.
    - mc32 9y ago
      True, but some of those are not mutually exclusive. And while atheism isn't a religion by definition, in practice it might as well be.
- imron 9y ago
  Does that same freedom exist for private entities that don't want to bake cakes for gay couples? The problem with limiting freedoms to certain groups is that you have little to no control over who gets to decide which groups are acceptable. Today it might be a group you don't like. One election later and it might be a group that you are a part off. That is why you need to defend the principle, even if you don't like the specifics of what you are defending, and is why, for example, the ACLU is defending Milo: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-could-you-represent-someone-milo-yiannopoulos https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-could-you-represe...
  - zhemao 9y ago
    > Does that same freedom exist for private entities that don't want to bake cakes for gay couples? I think sexuality should be a protected class. I do not think neo-Nazis or White supremacists should be a protected class. But in the case of the wedding cake, I think it would be fine for bakers, caterers, or photographers to refuse to work at a gay wedding, an event they consider immoral. If a customer happened to be a neo-Nazi and was booking a vacation stay, I doubt AirBnB would have cared. It was the fact that they were using the service to book accommodations for the rally that caused the company to cancel their booking. > That is why you need to defend the principle, even if you don't like the specifics of what you are defending, and is why, for example, the ACLU is defending Milo The ACLU is defending Milo from government suppression of his speech. I agree with the principle they are defending. This is not the same as a private entity deciding not to do business with him. The ACLU will not, for instance, help him sue Simon & Schuster for cancelling his book deal.
Jach 9y ago
Reasonable people can disagree on the definition of "Nazi", however, which is the real slippery slope, rather than the slope against freedom of association that we're all well down already. Want to ban people who identify as Nazis? Fine. Want to ban someone who gets called a Nazi just because they donated money to support legislation banning gay marriage? Ehh...
imron 9y ago
The problem is how do you define nazi? Is this guy a nazi [0]? And what about all the people who call anyone who voted for or who supports trump a nazi? That's the slippery slope. 0: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tWFMUIP3lHo https://youtube.com/watch?v=tWFMUIP3lHo
badwulf 9y ago
You agree with that until you get labelled a Nazi, then you will find that maybe having private individuals and companies arbitrarily labelling nazis is not a good idea. I'm fine with the court and the police punishing them, it's not cool to see private companies take matters into their own hands.

Yes, the 1st amendment protects freedom of association. That is, the freedom of private entities to not do business with Nazis.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mc32 9y ago
I'm all for not doing business with hate and or terrorist groups but I don't think I'd want to ground it on "freedom of association" basis as anyone could make that same claim for not serving a sub-class of people. Maybe protestants refuse to serve atheists, or vice versa, for example.
- zhemao 9y ago
  Religion, race, gender, etc. are protected classes. Political ideology is not.
  - mc32 9y ago
    True, but some of those are not mutually exclusive. And while atheism isn't a religion by definition, in practice it might as well be.
imron 9y ago
Does that same freedom exist for private entities that don't want to bake cakes for gay couples? The problem with limiting freedoms to certain groups is that you have little to no control over who gets to decide which groups are acceptable. Today it might be a group you don't like. One election later and it might be a group that you are a part off. That is why you need to defend the principle, even if you don't like the specifics of what you are defending, and is why, for example, the ACLU is defending Milo: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-could-you-represent-someone-milo-yiannopoulos https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/how-could-you-represe...
- zhemao 9y ago
  > Does that same freedom exist for private entities that don't want to bake cakes for gay couples? I think sexuality should be a protected class. I do not think neo-Nazis or White supremacists should be a protected class. But in the case of the wedding cake, I think it would be fine for bakers, caterers, or photographers to refuse to work at a gay wedding, an event they consider immoral. If a customer happened to be a neo-Nazi and was booking a vacation stay, I doubt AirBnB would have cared. It was the fact that they were using the service to book accommodations for the rally that caused the company to cancel their booking. > That is why you need to defend the principle, even if you don't like the specifics of what you are defending, and is why, for example, the ACLU is defending Milo The ACLU is defending Milo from government suppression of his speech. I agree with the principle they are defending. This is not the same as a private entity deciding not to do business with him. The ACLU will not, for instance, help him sue Simon & Schuster for cancelling his book deal.

Jach 9y ago

Reasonable people can disagree on the definition of "Nazi", however, which is the real slippery slope, rather than the slope against freedom of association that we're all well down already. Want to ban people who identify as Nazis? Fine. Want to ban someone who gets called a Nazi just because they donated money to support legislation banning gay marriage? Ehh...

imron 9y ago

The problem is how do you define nazi? Is this guy a nazi [0]? And what about all the people who call anyone who voted for or who supports trump a nazi? That's the slippery slope. 0: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tWFMUIP3lHo https://youtube.com/watch?v=tWFMUIP3lHo

badwulf 9y ago

You agree with that until you get labelled a Nazi, then you will find that maybe having private individuals and companies arbitrarily labelling nazis is not a good idea. I'm fine with the court and the police punishing them, it's not cool to see private companies take matters into their own hands.