8 ms·
>Don't wanna sell cakes to gay people or host pro-Nazi sites? Don't start a business serving the public then. I get what you’re saying and agree with you, but
by vaishaksuresh 9y ago
>Don't wanna sell cakes to gay people or host pro-Nazi sites? Don't start a business serving the public then.
I get what you’re saying and agree with you, but please don’t compare gay people and neo-nazi. They’re not same or even similar.
- genon 9y agoIf you get what I'm saying - comparing two well-known instances from different parts of the political spectrum where businesses try and refuse custom for ideological reasons - why are you pretending I'm comparing gay people to neo-Nazis?
- vaishaksuresh 9y agoBecause you choose to be a neo nazi, you don’t choose to be gay. I’m not talking about denying service. I’m saying one of them did not choose to be what they are.
- leereeves 9y agoIt's not clear that people choose their beliefs - or anything else. That's essentially the free will debate, which is still unsettled.
- edraferi 9y ago> Because you choose to be a neo nazi, you don’t choose to be gay. I agree with you, but many people do not, making it a political statement. Things get very complicated as soon as you abandon the bright line test of "you must serve the whole public."
- Stratoscope 9y agoNo one is comparing gay people with neo-nazis or saying there is some equivalence, they were just two very different examples to illustrate a point. In fact, what makes it such a good illustration is how different they are from each other. Let me change it to an example more dear to my own heart: > Don't wanna hire old programmers or host pro-Nazi sites? Don't start a business serving the public then. I certainly didn't choose to be an old programmer! It seems to have just happened, maybe by some law of nature. But I'm not offended by being mentioned in the same sentence with pro-Nazi sites. It's pretty obvious that no comparison is being made between the two.
- invisible 9y agoNo comparison is being made but they are being equated as two of the same types of "discrimination." They are very different in that one group, Nazis, are most notably known for their discrimination against others (e.g., a choice).
- everheardofc 9y agoWhat if neo nazis get rebranded under some other name? They'd still be discriminating against others but hey at least they are no longer neo nazis, right?
- invisible 9y agoI don't know how that has to do with anything. A name is just a label we apply to concepts. A discriminatory group is still in the wrong in my opinion.
- snakeanus 9y agoYou don't choose to have a certain ideology.
- sandaru1 9y agoBut the religious groups are a protected class. Religion is something you choose. By that logic, it would be possible to discriminate against "Christians", "Muslims", etc.
- fusiongyro 9y agoI feel like you can see the problem with this line of reasoning if you finish that list you started there.
- baddox 9y agoSuppose one could choose who they have romantic/sexual relationships with. Would that really change the argument here?
- peteretep 9y agoYour bakery is free to discriminate against swingers.
- urbanj 9y agoBecause you are
- woofyman 9y agoThe difference is the people of Colorado through their elected representatives included gays in an anti-discrimination law. Here in Georgia, the bakers would get an medal from the legislature.
- peteretep 9y ago> comparing two well-known instances > from different parts of the political > spectrum Being gay isn't a position on a political spectrum. Neither is being black. Neither is being female. Being a neo-Nazi is.
- baddox 9y agoI believe the commenter is referring to the political controversies of private businesses refusing service to members of those two groups.
- taneq 9y agoThat was kind of the point. Non-discrimination, like free speech, is worthless if it only applies to things you approve of.
- eyelidlessness 9y agoNazis are not a protected class.
- wyager 9y agoFree speech, freedom of conscience, and non-discrimination are moral principles that go beyond US federal statute. "US federal law doesn't precisely reflect your moral standpoint" isn't a very good argument against a belief.
- wooter 9y agogreat answer to this oft repeated nonsense deflection
- dashundchen 9y agoNo, it's not nonsense. The line has been drawn on once and many times after, by the Supreme court. When your speech impinges on the safety or rights of another citizen, you are not covered by free speech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States Free speech is not carte blanche to invite violence or call for a genocide. Please watch the recent vice documentary to hear what and how the Charlottesville white supremacists prepared for. It's truly vile and genocidal. If you want to see a society who has been much more firm holding against racist nonsense, see Germany who has legislated against Nazi symbols and propoganda. Do you see why allowing indimidation and hateful violence run rampant is a bad idea?
- wyager 9y ago> Please watch the recent vice documentary Why in the world would you expect this to give you anything resembling an unbiased or well-informed view? Go on twitter, 8chan, and liveleak; all the raw footage and discussion is there.
- Spivak 9y agoRight, the distinction is that neo-Nazi's are bad -- hateful, intolerant, divisive, problematic or however you want to put it. I'm uncomfortable saying that it's okay to do these things to the bad guys, even when it's obvious, because in an alternate universe it might be obvious that gays marrying is hateful toward Christians and intolerant of their sacred rituals.
- vaishaksuresh 9y agoNo. The distinction is that neo-nazis chose to follow a hateful ideology. Gay people did not choose to be gay. I’m not supporting denial of service, in fact I think nobody should be denied service. I’m just pointing out that the equivalence is not right.
- wyager 9y agoSo if someone chooses to follow evil red anti-American socialist beliefs, it's presumably OK to censor and deplatform them, right? Normalizing political censorship is how you get McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Normalizing political violence is how you get pogroms. It does not matter who the first victims are; you cannot control how the tides will turn in the future.
- vaishaksuresh 9y agoWhy is hard for you to comprehend that I’m not advocating any form of censorship or denial of service? I’m saying the equivalence is wrong.
- edraferi 9y agoRight, and we're saying that it's correct... how someone joined a particular class/group shouldn't effect how that class/group is treated.
- dashundchen 9y agoWere socialists calling for the eradication of a class of people based on race or born characteristics? No. These neonazis were, and it breaches the barrier of free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, light years tamer, also is. Western society, including the Supreme Court, has decided free speech ends where harm to others begins.