3 ms·

no.... we put a limit into what private companies can discriminate against. Private taxis would routinely refuse you service because of your ethnic background

no.... we put a limit into what private companies can discriminate against. Private taxis would routinely refuse you service because of your ethnic background it still can happen, but it is illegal for good reasons

caslon 6y ago
There's a constitutional amendment for that specific carve-out, though. The constitution permits that limit, it doesn't what many in this thread are proposing.
- Brian_K_White 6y ago
  It's not only the same, it's worse. You have 2 choices: 1) Decline to recognize thst Google is in any way a special case, and so treat Google like any other private business, like your brother-in-laws little one-man coffee shop. 2) Recognize that Google is in any way special and different from some other random small private business. Let's say you subscribe to 1) : On the surface level, being denied service in the app store because your app caters to people who are poly, is like being denied service in the general store because you're black, or Chinese, Or Jewish. Your freedom as a business operator is that you are free not to operate a business if you can't stomach the thought of having to sell flour to black people. So, if you think Google is just a private business like any other and with the same rights as any other, then they must offer flour to the black people too. They can't mysteriously be out of flour just for some people based on race, religion, sex, etc. But of course, whether anyone subscribes to it or not, 2) is in effect. Google is not just a private business like a motorcycle repair shop or a hair salon. A marketplace owner doesn't just own a business that must service everyone equally, they actually own the street that all possible businesses and all possible customers must use. That makes the marketplace owner an order of magnitude more liable for their actions, in the way that the state is for the ordinary phyical street. Now their decisions not only abuse an individual customer (an app developer) but exert control over entire populations. It is ENTIRELY reasonable and rational and fair to have strict limits, high standards, and onerous even draconian oversight on anyone in any such position. The state weilds that same sort of control over ordinary streets and businesses and customers, and because of that, the state is actually very limited in what it can do, and must always be able to justify why it does anything. (in theory anyway, on paper anyway). If the state wants to say that some business can't operate, it has to be prepared to defend that decision legally. Google and other large operations have set up environments where they have state-level control over state-level populations with corner coffee shop-level autonomy.
  - caslon 6y ago
    > On the surface level, being denied service in the app store because your app caters to people who are poly, is like being denied service in the general store because you're black, or Chinese, Or Jewish. No it's not! Your race is innate, sexuality is innate, that isn't. Your argument is so transparently ridiculous that I highly doubt you're operating in good faith.
    - Brian_K_White 6y ago
      The color of my toothbrush is also a choice. What business or organization or government office is, or should be, allowed to discriminate on that basis? You want to rent a new appartment. You have your money and job and credit score and reputation as a good tennant all good to go. But the owner needs to know what color your toothbrush is, and apparently yours is the wrong color. I wonder what whether you consider religion innate or a choice? I somehow just magically predict that you currently benefit from the fact that other people allow you something you don't allow other people. Using your clearly not ridiculous and clearly good faith argument, I should be free to, say, run a motor vehicles office in your city, and deny you a drivers license because I consider any sincere belief in any religion to be evidense of mental incapacity, and for everyone's safety we can not have irrational people operating vehicles around other people. They might decide that God told them to run someone over, or they might not value life properly because they don't think dying is really dying. I suspect you don't think I should be allowed to make that kind of call over other people. Tell me more about ridiculous arguments. It's truly fascinating.

caslon 6y ago

There's a constitutional amendment for that specific carve-out, though. The constitution permits that limit, it doesn't what many in this thread are proposing.

Brian_K_White 6y ago
It's not only the same, it's worse. You have 2 choices: 1) Decline to recognize thst Google is in any way a special case, and so treat Google like any other private business, like your brother-in-laws little one-man coffee shop. 2) Recognize that Google is in any way special and different from some other random small private business. Let's say you subscribe to 1) : On the surface level, being denied service in the app store because your app caters to people who are poly, is like being denied service in the general store because you're black, or Chinese, Or Jewish. Your freedom as a business operator is that you are free not to operate a business if you can't stomach the thought of having to sell flour to black people. So, if you think Google is just a private business like any other and with the same rights as any other, then they must offer flour to the black people too. They can't mysteriously be out of flour just for some people based on race, religion, sex, etc. But of course, whether anyone subscribes to it or not, 2) is in effect. Google is not just a private business like a motorcycle repair shop or a hair salon. A marketplace owner doesn't just own a business that must service everyone equally, they actually own the street that all possible businesses and all possible customers must use. That makes the marketplace owner an order of magnitude more liable for their actions, in the way that the state is for the ordinary phyical street. Now their decisions not only abuse an individual customer (an app developer) but exert control over entire populations. It is ENTIRELY reasonable and rational and fair to have strict limits, high standards, and onerous even draconian oversight on anyone in any such position. The state weilds that same sort of control over ordinary streets and businesses and customers, and because of that, the state is actually very limited in what it can do, and must always be able to justify why it does anything. (in theory anyway, on paper anyway). If the state wants to say that some business can't operate, it has to be prepared to defend that decision legally. Google and other large operations have set up environments where they have state-level control over state-level populations with corner coffee shop-level autonomy.
- caslon 6y ago
  > On the surface level, being denied service in the app store because your app caters to people who are poly, is like being denied service in the general store because you're black, or Chinese, Or Jewish. No it's not! Your race is innate, sexuality is innate, that isn't. Your argument is so transparently ridiculous that I highly doubt you're operating in good faith.
  - Brian_K_White 6y ago
    The color of my toothbrush is also a choice. What business or organization or government office is, or should be, allowed to discriminate on that basis? You want to rent a new appartment. You have your money and job and credit score and reputation as a good tennant all good to go. But the owner needs to know what color your toothbrush is, and apparently yours is the wrong color. I wonder what whether you consider religion innate or a choice? I somehow just magically predict that you currently benefit from the fact that other people allow you something you don't allow other people. Using your clearly not ridiculous and clearly good faith argument, I should be free to, say, run a motor vehicles office in your city, and deny you a drivers license because I consider any sincere belief in any religion to be evidense of mental incapacity, and for everyone's safety we can not have irrational people operating vehicles around other people. They might decide that God told them to run someone over, or they might not value life properly because they don't think dying is really dying. I suspect you don't think I should be allowed to make that kind of call over other people. Tell me more about ridiculous arguments. It's truly fascinating.