3 ms·

>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

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