3 ms·

So what's stopping the grocery store from denying you service because they don't like the poltical campaign bumper sticker on your car? This is not a good prec

So what's stopping the grocery store from denying you service because they don't like the poltical campaign bumper sticker on your car? This is not a good precedent.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> what's stopping the grocery store from denying you service because they don't like the poltical campaign bumper sticker on your car? The principle of free speech restrains them. Nothing does—nor should—stop them. Civil freedom of speech is difficult to enshrine into law. It balances against other freedoms in a complex, unpredictable way. (For example, the freedom of assembly. If someone says something distasteful, one should be free to not associate with them.) But it has its place as a cultural value. It is also sensitive to context. A bumper sticker on an employee’s car is quite different from one on a customer’s.
three_seagrass 6y ago
The grocery store reserves the right to refuse service to whomever they want, so long as they are not a protected class. Are you saying you want to take that freedom away from private businesses?
- chroem- 6y ago
  If Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A announce tomorrow morning that they are refusing service to all people who voted for a Democratic candidate in the last few election cycles (something that's within the realm of plausibility), what would be your initial reaction?
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    You did not answer the question - Do you want to take that freedom away from American businesses? Political party is not a protected class, so those businesses are well in their right to do so (despite being sued by shareholders for eliminating half their revenue). It's the same way that those businesses reserve the right to kick out Nazis and alt-right scum.
    - chroem- 6y ago
      >Are you saying you want to take that freedom away from private businesses? >You did not answer the question - Do you want to take that freedom away from American businesses? Yes, I absolutely am. I am proposing that we legally enshrine political ideology as a protected class, as has been the common custom in the US until very recently. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental human right, and it needs to be protected in all venues, both public and private. Infringing on corporate personhood is a small price to pay for a free and open society. Edit: (comment thread is too deep and not able to reply directly) The recent trend of trying to silence political opponents represents an existential threat to our democracy. I'm really baffled how others in this thread are not able to see why that is. Nowhere in this discussion have I claimed to be persecuted, or have I even established what my political leanings are.
      - three_seagrass 6y ago
        Political ideology is a choice, and as such, not protected by the civil rights act of 1964. You can wish you were a victim of persecution for your political choice, but it is still your choice, and as such, people can also choose to not employ or serve you for your decision.
        throwaway1801 6y ago
        Terrible reasoning. Parental or marital status are also choices but are protected classes.
        three_seagrass 6y ago
        No, by that reason they should not be protected classes, as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc should be. Same with religion. Also, why did you just create a throwaway just to make that comment?
        ThrowawayR2 6y ago
        Ironically, political activities or affiliations is a protected class in California. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment-discrimination-31690.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen... That's what genuine, old school liberalism looks like, kids.
  - geofft 6y ago
    My initial reaction - I've been trying to get all my Democratic-voting friends to stop paying money to Chick-fil-A. If they want to do it for me, great. Now, I might think that Chick-fil-A is making a bad business decision, but part of what it means to be in America is that you have the freedom to make bad decisions. Certainly, as someone who has voted Democrat, is religious, and is not white, I believe that the three of those are of quite different levels of voluntary choice on my behalf and I don't think that laws/social norms that apply to the most involuntary of those should apply without change to the most voluntary of those.
  - thingymajig 6y ago
    I already specifically avoid both companies, so go nuts.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Maybe it's cause I'm european, but if it were up to me: yes, in a heartbeat. The closer to (local) monopoly a company comes, the more it advertises itself as a universal provider, the less choice it should have in its customers. The easiest way to do this would be a radical expansion of the notion of protected class to cover at the least exercise of any fundamental right (such as speech). To be explicit since for some reason people here are afraid to come out and say this: yes, I want to take that freedom away from American businesses and I would if I could. (I'd take it away from European businesses too.) That's what a law is - that's what every law is.
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    In the U.S. at least, grocery stores are not monopolies. Neither is Facebook. Both have competitors who can supply fungible services to the market, some of which are typically very close, sometimes "just a click away".
    - FeepingCreature 6y ago
      Agree with grocery stores, disagree with Facebook. It should be fungible, ie. required by law to expose APIs for interoperability with other social networks, but it isn't. Imagine if you needed a separate credit card per store you visited.
      - nradov 6y ago
        Before Visa and Mastercard became widespread, it was common for some stores to only accept their own proprietary charge cards. Even today, stores aren't legally required to accept particular cards. Some don't take American Express or Discover. Others only accept cash.
        FeepingCreature 6y ago
        Right but cash is this for stores. If there's a special kind of cash that's only accepted at one store, I don't know if that's legal but I feel it either isn't or at least shouldn't be.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  Some freedom, yes. It's not 0% or 100%. I'm sure there is already something that is illegal for companies to do or say or censor. Why not adding one more thing which is fake news? It's a possible idea that doesn't sound far-fetched.
zwily 6y ago
Nothing is stopping them from doing that. “Political ideology” is not a protected class.
- Natsu 6y ago
  Except in California, though I think it's party rather than ideology.
geofft 6y ago
Nothing, and that's a good thing, because now that wearing masks is a partisan political issue, grocery stores should feel entirely within their rights to ban people who refuse to wear masks even if they claim political grounds, and they should not be forced by the government to let people in. In America, the default is that private businesses, even those who provide a service to the public, get to choose who they engage in business with and how, with no interference from the government. There are very narrow exceptions (Civil Rights Act, ADA, antitrust, etc.) when absolutely necessary.

So what's stopping the grocery store from denying you service because they don't like the poltical campaign bumper sticker on your car? This is not a good precedent.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> what's stopping the grocery store from denying you service because they don't like the poltical campaign bumper sticker on your car? The principle of free speech restrains them. Nothing does—nor should—stop them. Civil freedom of speech is difficult to enshrine into law. It balances against other freedoms in a complex, unpredictable way. (For example, the freedom of assembly. If someone says something distasteful, one should be free to not associate with them.) But it has its place as a cultural value. It is also sensitive to context. A bumper sticker on an employee’s car is quite different from one on a customer’s.

three_seagrass 6y ago

The grocery store reserves the right to refuse service to whomever they want, so long as they are not a protected class. Are you saying you want to take that freedom away from private businesses?

chroem- 6y ago
If Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A announce tomorrow morning that they are refusing service to all people who voted for a Democratic candidate in the last few election cycles (something that's within the realm of plausibility), what would be your initial reaction?
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  You did not answer the question - Do you want to take that freedom away from American businesses? Political party is not a protected class, so those businesses are well in their right to do so (despite being sued by shareholders for eliminating half their revenue). It's the same way that those businesses reserve the right to kick out Nazis and alt-right scum.
  - chroem- 6y ago
    >Are you saying you want to take that freedom away from private businesses? >You did not answer the question - Do you want to take that freedom away from American businesses? Yes, I absolutely am. I am proposing that we legally enshrine political ideology as a protected class, as has been the common custom in the US until very recently. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental human right, and it needs to be protected in all venues, both public and private. Infringing on corporate personhood is a small price to pay for a free and open society. Edit: (comment thread is too deep and not able to reply directly) The recent trend of trying to silence political opponents represents an existential threat to our democracy. I'm really baffled how others in this thread are not able to see why that is. Nowhere in this discussion have I claimed to be persecuted, or have I even established what my political leanings are.
    - three_seagrass 6y ago
      Political ideology is a choice, and as such, not protected by the civil rights act of 1964. You can wish you were a victim of persecution for your political choice, but it is still your choice, and as such, people can also choose to not employ or serve you for your decision.
      - throwaway1801 6y ago
        Terrible reasoning. Parental or marital status are also choices but are protected classes.
        three_seagrass 6y ago
        No, by that reason they should not be protected classes, as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc should be. Same with religion. Also, why did you just create a throwaway just to make that comment?
      - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
        Ironically, political activities or affiliations is a protected class in California. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment-discrimination-31690.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen... That's what genuine, old school liberalism looks like, kids.
- geofft 6y ago
  My initial reaction - I've been trying to get all my Democratic-voting friends to stop paying money to Chick-fil-A. If they want to do it for me, great. Now, I might think that Chick-fil-A is making a bad business decision, but part of what it means to be in America is that you have the freedom to make bad decisions. Certainly, as someone who has voted Democrat, is religious, and is not white, I believe that the three of those are of quite different levels of voluntary choice on my behalf and I don't think that laws/social norms that apply to the most involuntary of those should apply without change to the most voluntary of those.
- thingymajig 6y ago
  I already specifically avoid both companies, so go nuts.
FeepingCreature 6y ago
Maybe it's cause I'm european, but if it were up to me: yes, in a heartbeat. The closer to (local) monopoly a company comes, the more it advertises itself as a universal provider, the less choice it should have in its customers. The easiest way to do this would be a radical expansion of the notion of protected class to cover at the least exercise of any fundamental right (such as speech). To be explicit since for some reason people here are afraid to come out and say this: yes, I want to take that freedom away from American businesses and I would if I could. (I'd take it away from European businesses too.) That's what a law is - that's what every law is.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  In the U.S. at least, grocery stores are not monopolies. Neither is Facebook. Both have competitors who can supply fungible services to the market, some of which are typically very close, sometimes "just a click away".
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    Agree with grocery stores, disagree with Facebook. It should be fungible, ie. required by law to expose APIs for interoperability with other social networks, but it isn't. Imagine if you needed a separate credit card per store you visited.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Before Visa and Mastercard became widespread, it was common for some stores to only accept their own proprietary charge cards. Even today, stores aren't legally required to accept particular cards. Some don't take American Express or Discover. Others only accept cash.
      - FeepingCreature 6y ago
        Right but cash is this for stores. If there's a special kind of cash that's only accepted at one store, I don't know if that's legal but I feel it either isn't or at least shouldn't be.
ergocoder 6y ago
Some freedom, yes. It's not 0% or 100%. I'm sure there is already something that is illegal for companies to do or say or censor. Why not adding one more thing which is fake news? It's a possible idea that doesn't sound far-fetched.

zwily 6y ago

Nothing is stopping them from doing that. “Political ideology” is not a protected class.

Natsu 6y ago
Except in California, though I think it's party rather than ideology.

geofft 6y ago

Nothing, and that's a good thing, because now that wearing masks is a partisan political issue, grocery stores should feel entirely within their rights to ban people who refuse to wear masks even if they claim political grounds, and they should not be forced by the government to let people in. In America, the default is that private businesses, even those who provide a service to the public, get to choose who they engage in business with and how, with no interference from the government. There are very narrow exceptions (Civil Rights Act, ADA, antitrust, etc.) when absolutely necessary.