4 ms·

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 servic

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".

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".