6 ms·
Here's an equally important question: where did you land on the court case that ruled a christian cake maker couldn't refuse service to a gay couple based on th
by lj3 9y ago
Here's an equally important question: where did you land on the court case that ruled a christian cake maker couldn't refuse service to a gay couple based on their faith? The question here extends far beyond the domain of tech. Are people allowed to choose whom they associate and do business with or aren't they? Does having a strong network effect influence that decision? What if that baker colluded with every other bakery in town to make sure nobody would bake that couple a cake? We've seen that behavior recently among web registrars.
In my humble opinion, I don't like the precedent the gab lawsuit is trying to set. I'm for free association, but against active collusion. They're only suing Google and they're not alleging collusion between multiple parties (like Apple).
The registrar thing is a whole other ball of wax. One company has a monopoly on domain registrars. That's going to prove to be a big problem for people who are not on the Right one day very soon.
- dropit_sphere 9y ago10/10 A+++ for this comment and the juxtaposition it creates, because it highlights the contradiction that proves this is thorny. I'm a scary far-right kind of guy, and am predictably pro-cakemaker and pro-gab. My well-adjusted and empathetic counterparts are presumably anti-cakemaker and anti-gab. And yet we all seem to be having some difficulty with consistency here.
- pj_mukh 9y agoThe cake made for a gay couple doesn't have the stamp of the cake maker on it. And nobody is forcing the cake maker to advertise/display/host the fact that they make cakes for gay weddings. Also, more importantly, the courts aren't making the cake maker put on violent propaganda on the fondant :/. I'm hoping the courts can see the difference when judging "free association" and just throw this out.