4 ms·
Yes, like all those conservatives fighting for Hobby Lobby to not provide contraception support for it's employees because "first amendment" and all those mom a
by cjslep 9y ago
Yes, like all those conservatives fighting for Hobby Lobby to not provide contraception support for it's employees because "first amendment" and all those mom and pop shops that don't want to serve gay people in the South because of first amendment rights.
Seriously, conservatives in America want to have their cake and eat it too. "We meant freedom for corporations-as-people but only when it helps us".
- mantas 9y agoWhich is not good either. IMO, any business shall serve any customer regardless. Unless said customer is breaking a (sane) law. For the record, I'm not American. I grew up in ex-USSR country that was just recovering from total censorship. What is going on today in the world is sickening me. A lot of rhetoric in the West is too similar to USSR craziness. I'll be happy to be offended and keep my right to offend you. The other way ain't pretty.
- tanilama 9y ago> any business shall serve any customer regardless Amazon blacklists people who abuse their service, like return policy. They are not breaking the laws, but blocking these bad customers is not only a moral choice but also a rational one, since it protects the sellers and other customers. Likewise, if you are making a scene in a private space, if it disturbs the usual operation, the owner should have the right to kick you out, because you are damaging their business. So I say otherwise, any private business owner should have the right to refuse offering their service to people who they consider harmful to their interests. Google could argue, hosting those hateful content draw negative attention from the media which tarnish their image thus hurt their business interests. The one and only problem is, Google is too big and too powerful, their decision carries significant impact which should not be taken lightly.
- mantas 9y agoWhat is gay couple is making a scene in a private space and demanding a cake? And the bakery happens to be by the church and having gays hand-in-hand would severely hurt their business? What if instead of gays it's cyclists in undersized lycra? I'd rather not have either of them kicked out. I'm pretty sure abuse of return policy is covered by some kind of law. On the other hand, blacklisting customers who just use advertised return policy to it's full extent is not moral either. False advertisement is breaking of the law too.
- Banthum 9y agoFair point, but there is a difference: power. More powerful companies (like Google) need to constrained in ways that less powerful companies (like Joe's Cake Shop) don't.
- bmelton 9y ago> and all those mom and pop shops that don't want to serve gay people in the South because of first amendment rights. Citation? This seems like a clumsy attempt to bash the south. Considering that the two largest cases for violating public accommodation laws hail from Oregon (Sweet Cakes) and Colorado (Masterpiece), with other cases from Las Vegas (Walmart) and Ohio (Take the Cake), it seems ... off.
- ImaMicroService 9y agoYeah we're used to it. It's just assumed that all racism is in the South, and all Southerners are racists. I believe "whipping boy" is the term.