3 ms·

You are missing the point. Your logic means no business can refuse to deal with any public company, because any company of any size has a(n) $ETHNICITY sharehol

You are missing the point. Your logic means no business can refuse to deal with any public company, because any company of any size has a(n) $ETHNICITY shareholder.

wongarsu 7y ago
You can always start with "more than 50% of shares held by $ETHNICITY", and if you notice that you have an effect you can slowly lower the limit to allow fewer and fewer $ETHNICITY shareholders.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Ok, let $ETHNICITY = white Americans.
  - Retric 7y ago
    If we’re talking globally then plenty of examples of that exist right now. I don’t know your gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin, but I can guarantee someone you’re going to have issues doing business because of discrimination. Saying X in not an issue in a country where X is protected/prohibited/regulated etc is a very week argument for getting rid of the associated laws.
ineedasername 7y ago
I think you are bypassing the issue the GP was addressing: You said the scenario described by the GGP was absurd. The GP provided a concrete example of that scenario. GP was disputing your characterization of the example as absurd, nothing more.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Your logic means no business can refuse to deal with any public company, because any company of any size has a(n) $ETHNICITY shareholder. No, nothing offered upthread suggested that. First of all because it didn't refer to merely having a shareholder of a particular ethnicity, but more critically because it didn't suggest it was illegal to refuse to do business with a company that happened to have a major shareholder or board member of a particular race or ethnicity but that it was illegal for a business to refuse to do business because of the race/ethnicity of some party holding a specified role ownership/management role within the target firm.

3 ms·

You are missing the point. Your logic means no business can refuse to deal with any public company, because any company of any size has a(n) $ETHNICITY sharehol

by pmiller2 7y ago

You are missing the point. Your logic means no business can refuse to deal with any public company, because any company of any size has a(n) $ETHNICITY shareholder.

wongarsu 7y ago
You can always start with "more than 50% of shares held by $ETHNICITY", and if you notice that you have an effect you can slowly lower the limit to allow fewer and fewer $ETHNICITY shareholders.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Ok, let $ETHNICITY = white Americans.
  - Retric 7y ago
    If we’re talking globally then plenty of examples of that exist right now. I don’t know your gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin, but I can guarantee someone you’re going to have issues doing business because of discrimination. Saying X in not an issue in a country where X is protected/prohibited/regulated etc is a very week argument for getting rid of the associated laws.
ineedasername 7y ago
I think you are bypassing the issue the GP was addressing: You said the scenario described by the GGP was absurd. The GP provided a concrete example of that scenario. GP was disputing your characterization of the example as absurd, nothing more.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Your logic means no business can refuse to deal with any public company, because any company of any size has a(n) $ETHNICITY shareholder. No, nothing offered upthread suggested that. First of all because it didn't refer to merely having a shareholder of a particular ethnicity, but more critically because it didn't suggest it was illegal to refuse to do business with a company that happened to have a major shareholder or board member of a particular race or ethnicity but that it was illegal for a business to refuse to do business because of the race/ethnicity of some party holding a specified role ownership/management role within the target firm.