6 ms·

Doesn't this open up the door to using legality as a proxy for morality? Shouldn't a company, regardless of the service they provide, be free to establish their

by yock 9y ago

Doesn't this open up the door to using legality as a proxy for morality? Shouldn't a company, regardless of the service they provide, be free to establish their own conditions under which they will act or not act?

mars4rp 9y ago
morality is relevant, rarely people that is doing something that we think immoral see their acts as immoral too. "Shouldn't a company, regardless of the service they provide, be free to establish their own conditions under which they will act or not act?" like a restaurant in south refusing to serve blacks? with restaurant you have at least some options, but with businesses with monopoly finding an alternative is very hard or expensive.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  >like a restaurant in south refusing to serve blacks? Which would be illegal as race is a legally protected status.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    Isn't sexual identity / orientation protected as well? These companies are banning clients for simply talking about sex. That seems like a grey area but it's treading pretty close to discrimination in my mind. Then again, should Google be forced to put adsense ads on a porn site? Really murky territory.
    - sparky_z 9y ago
      > Isn't sexual identity / orientation protected as well? Nope. As I understand it, sexual orientation is not officially a protected class[0]. Seems like it should be, but it isn't. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Isn't sexual identity / orientation protected as well? It is not protected under federal public accommodation law like race is. Gender identity and sexual orientation are each protected under minority of state laws (overlapping but not identical minorities, IIRC.) > That seems like a grey area but it's treading pretty close to discrimination in my mind. It's absolutely discrimination. The question is whether it is or should be illegal discrimination.
  - forgottenpass 9y ago
    Yes. It is now. Legislation to make it illegal was an act of society deciding that an otherwise-legal business decision was so unpalatable it must be prevented. -- That's what makes it such a good hypothetical. You can ask yourself "if such business decisions were legal, should they be prevented or discouraged? And what mechanisms would be appropriate?" So I don't understand your point. Yes, it's illegal now. Are you arguing for companies to always operate as they see fit, as long as it's legal, and regardless of moral opinions of anyone other than themselves? Are you arguing that there shouldn't be any moral-based laws to stop discrimination like this one? Are you making a point that companies should be stopped from making immoral decisions with the force of law beyond the current limitations? Are you making a point that the current set of groups legislation gives legal protection perfectly overlaps with the set of groups that that morally should have protection from otherwise-legal business decisions? Are you simply being a pedant about the current boundaries of law without meaningful contribution to clean up the hypothetical or clarify the questions raised by the conversation at hand?
  - mars4rp 9y ago
    It was legal when they were doing it! Legal != ethical
- k_sh 9y ago
  Race, being an immutable characteristic of a human being, is quite different from restrictions on the nature of created content.
  - andrewfong 9y ago
    What about religion? Religion is, strictly speaking, mutable. But, for me at least, saying "no Muslims" or "no Sikhs" is the same level of badness as saying "no blacks".
    - k_sh 9y ago
      Religion is a tricky one.... It is mutable, but most people (a) don't change their religion in their lifetime and (b) use religion as a proxy signal for social identity, including many things that aren't mutable. In practice: I'd take the bet that a white person of Muslim faith could get around a "no Muslims" rule most of the time. "No Muslims", then, can be a proxy for "no middle-Eastern looking folks".
SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
That's not how the US presently works -- see things like the ADA or discrimination laws, which regulate how a business may deny service and what accommodations for customers they must provide. It's not absurd that an essential civil service -- payment processing -- should be regulated to uphold our collective standards of freedom, and not use their privileged position to impose their private moral standards on society.
Analemma_ 9y ago
It's strange that you would make a slippery slope argument in this context, because a slippery slope is the situation we're already in. If there are going to be circumstances in which a company refuses service, I'd rather they be a) decided on democratically and b) visible to everyone in the RSA, rather than behind an opaque corporate structure. The current situation is much worse.
coralreef 9y ago
Until your private education or health services starts turning people away based on race/religion/political affiliation
- klodolph 9y ago
  There are already laws against discrimination by protected status (race/religion count), and laws about access to health services.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    To my (admittedly weak) understanding, those laws affect employment, government agencies, and the ability to get any sort of government funding/aid. Are there laws that actually require organizations to allow membership in or provide services for all people? That doesn't seem workable.
    - klodolph 9y ago
      Not only is this workable, but there was a whole movement around these issues in the 1960s called the civil rights movement. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the results of that movement, and this law makes it illegal for a store to refuse service on the basis of race, for example. This is why you don't see signs saying "No Coloreds" in stores any more. Other laws, like the ADA and FHA, have expanded on this, and individual states have broader protections. Look at the case of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon, which was fined for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple. For emergency care, look up the EMTLA. There are many other regulations centered on discrimination and health care, that's just one of them.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Which gets really complicated really quickly. There are plenty of cases of benign exclusivity, and plenty of cases of less than benign exclusivity, even in those areas you specifically pointed out.
dilap 9y ago
How about refusing to sell someone a cake?
lr4444lr 9y ago
The horse has LONG left that barn since the "public accommodation" doctrine of the Civil Rights Act. Should Christian bakers be able to refuse catering a gay wedding?
- droopyEyelids 9y ago
  We've got specific exceptions written into law for the things society deems appropriate. Thats a lot different than 'allow everything with no judgement'
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    Obviously, but that doesn't really mean anything other than reiterating the OP's point.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    At which point you have the government making the decision what to mandate. If the service is important enough that it has to be mandated in some cases then why shouldn't it be mandated in all cases? If it isn't that important, why should it be mandated in any case?
  - yock 9y ago
    I'm a big fan of "allow everything with no judgement" to be honest. The principles and morals of some will always offend the sensibilities of others. What gives us the right to codify into law which reasons are just and which are not?
dabockster 9y ago
Didn't the Supreme Court already decide this? Something along the lines of "prioritize the law, not morals"?

by yock 9y ago

mars4rp 9y ago

morality is relevant, rarely people that is doing something that we think immoral see their acts as immoral too. "Shouldn't a company, regardless of the service they provide, be free to establish their own conditions under which they will act or not act?" like a restaurant in south refusing to serve blacks? with restaurant you have at least some options, but with businesses with monopoly finding an alternative is very hard or expensive.

EpicEng 9y ago
>like a restaurant in south refusing to serve blacks? Which would be illegal as race is a legally protected status.
- Danihan 9y ago
  Isn't sexual identity / orientation protected as well? These companies are banning clients for simply talking about sex. That seems like a grey area but it's treading pretty close to discrimination in my mind. Then again, should Google be forced to put adsense ads on a porn site? Really murky territory.
  - sparky_z 9y ago
    > Isn't sexual identity / orientation protected as well? Nope. As I understand it, sexual orientation is not officially a protected class[0]. Seems like it should be, but it isn't. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Isn't sexual identity / orientation protected as well? It is not protected under federal public accommodation law like race is. Gender identity and sexual orientation are each protected under minority of state laws (overlapping but not identical minorities, IIRC.) > That seems like a grey area but it's treading pretty close to discrimination in my mind. It's absolutely discrimination. The question is whether it is or should be illegal discrimination.
- forgottenpass 9y ago
  Yes. It is now. Legislation to make it illegal was an act of society deciding that an otherwise-legal business decision was so unpalatable it must be prevented. -- That's what makes it such a good hypothetical. You can ask yourself "if such business decisions were legal, should they be prevented or discouraged? And what mechanisms would be appropriate?" So I don't understand your point. Yes, it's illegal now. Are you arguing for companies to always operate as they see fit, as long as it's legal, and regardless of moral opinions of anyone other than themselves? Are you arguing that there shouldn't be any moral-based laws to stop discrimination like this one? Are you making a point that companies should be stopped from making immoral decisions with the force of law beyond the current limitations? Are you making a point that the current set of groups legislation gives legal protection perfectly overlaps with the set of groups that that morally should have protection from otherwise-legal business decisions? Are you simply being a pedant about the current boundaries of law without meaningful contribution to clean up the hypothetical or clarify the questions raised by the conversation at hand?
- mars4rp 9y ago
  It was legal when they were doing it! Legal != ethical
k_sh 9y ago
Race, being an immutable characteristic of a human being, is quite different from restrictions on the nature of created content.
- andrewfong 9y ago
  What about religion? Religion is, strictly speaking, mutable. But, for me at least, saying "no Muslims" or "no Sikhs" is the same level of badness as saying "no blacks".
  - k_sh 9y ago
    Religion is a tricky one.... It is mutable, but most people (a) don't change their religion in their lifetime and (b) use religion as a proxy signal for social identity, including many things that aren't mutable. In practice: I'd take the bet that a white person of Muslim faith could get around a "no Muslims" rule most of the time. "No Muslims", then, can be a proxy for "no middle-Eastern looking folks".

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

That's not how the US presently works -- see things like the ADA or discrimination laws, which regulate how a business may deny service and what accommodations for customers they must provide. It's not absurd that an essential civil service -- payment processing -- should be regulated to uphold our collective standards of freedom, and not use their privileged position to impose their private moral standards on society.

Analemma_ 9y ago

It's strange that you would make a slippery slope argument in this context, because a slippery slope is the situation we're already in. If there are going to be circumstances in which a company refuses service, I'd rather they be a) decided on democratically and b) visible to everyone in the RSA, rather than behind an opaque corporate structure. The current situation is much worse.

coralreef 9y ago

Until your private education or health services starts turning people away based on race/religion/political affiliation

klodolph 9y ago
There are already laws against discrimination by protected status (race/religion count), and laws about access to health services.
- kbenson 9y ago
  To my (admittedly weak) understanding, those laws affect employment, government agencies, and the ability to get any sort of government funding/aid. Are there laws that actually require organizations to allow membership in or provide services for all people? That doesn't seem workable.
  - klodolph 9y ago
    Not only is this workable, but there was a whole movement around these issues in the 1960s called the civil rights movement. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the results of that movement, and this law makes it illegal for a store to refuse service on the basis of race, for example. This is why you don't see signs saying "No Coloreds" in stores any more. Other laws, like the ADA and FHA, have expanded on this, and individual states have broader protections. Look at the case of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon, which was fined for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple. For emergency care, look up the EMTLA. There are many other regulations centered on discrimination and health care, that's just one of them.
kbenson 9y ago
Which gets really complicated really quickly. There are plenty of cases of benign exclusivity, and plenty of cases of less than benign exclusivity, even in those areas you specifically pointed out.

dilap 9y ago

How about refusing to sell someone a cake?

lr4444lr 9y ago

The horse has LONG left that barn since the "public accommodation" doctrine of the Civil Rights Act. Should Christian bakers be able to refuse catering a gay wedding?

droopyEyelids 9y ago
We've got specific exceptions written into law for the things society deems appropriate. Thats a lot different than 'allow everything with no judgement'
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  Obviously, but that doesn't really mean anything other than reiterating the OP's point.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  At which point you have the government making the decision what to mandate. If the service is important enough that it has to be mandated in some cases then why shouldn't it be mandated in all cases? If it isn't that important, why should it be mandated in any case?
- yock 9y ago
  I'm a big fan of "allow everything with no judgement" to be honest. The principles and morals of some will always offend the sensibilities of others. What gives us the right to codify into law which reasons are just and which are not?

dabockster 9y ago

Didn't the Supreme Court already decide this? Something along the lines of "prioritize the law, not morals"?