6 ms·

"We don't serve colored folks here."

by barbacoa 5y ago

dddddddan 5y ago
I think I missed where politicians are a protected class.
- Anon1096 5y ago
  Can government force companies (say, Parlor or Gab) to display posts from a protected class they wouldn't want to host? Forcing a platform to display women or black or other group's posts seems like it'd be equally anti-First Amendment to me.
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    It is my (layman, not-a-lawyer, possibly incorrect) understanding that, if they were to state that they did not allow a protect class to join and banned all members of that class from joining, they would encounter significant legal issues. Which would most likely be avoided by just enacting the policy silently (risky) or becoming an invite-only service (probably legal).
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    Its an interesting question, the gay wedding cake case "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission" was a first test and it seems to say probably not but the final judgement was based on religious freedom. Will probably need another case to determine. Regarding my personal opinion, I think they should be allowed to deny service to who they want as its a core feature of the business. I think this is different than a say black / white restricted eating areas as the core feature of those business' is to feed people, not to facilitate personal race / sexuality based interactions. Just my opinion though I am sure there are edge cases that would make me pause.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  This bill wasn't specifically aimed at only politicians. Try reading the entire thing instead of listening to sound bites on CNN.
lern_too_spel 5y ago
I don't know how you are going to define a protected class for conspiracy theorists who incite violence.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Are you referring to Antifa, BLM, or crazy Buffalo guy at the capitol who apparently almost took down the entire government by looking scary?
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    Yes. Twitter should be free to ban them too. Just because you're mad they don't doesn't mean the law is wrong.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      Who said I was mad? I just wanted to make sure you weren't implying a double standard. Is that upsetting you for some reason? Just to get a better understanding.... homosexuals, trans, black, muslim, asian etc. All free to ban too right?
      - anoonmoose 5y ago
        Black and Asian are races. Discrimination based on race violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is illegal. Muslims are members of a religion. Discrimination based on religion is illegal, same as above. In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the CRA64 also covered sexual orientation and gender identity, making discrimination based on being homosexual and transgender illegal. "Opinion, political belief, or political affiliation" is not a protected class, so it is legal to discriminate against people for those reasons. And, in my opinion, it is actually GOOD to discriminate against people for those reasons. It is an expression of ones First Amendment Freedom of Association.
        CountDrewku 5y ago
anoonmoose 5y ago
Are you suggesting that we should amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include "political opinion, affiliation, or belief" as a new protected class? If so, I think you may not have thought out the potential repercussions of that change.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  You don't think people's personal beliefs and allowing speech without repercussions is something that should be protected? I kinda think you're the one not considering repercussions of allowing these platforms to drive social norms. If your opinion holds so much water then you should welcome the opportunity to have public discourse with someone who thinks differently. What I hear when someone supports removing speech is just fear. Fear that their specific opinion won't stand up against someone else's. Regardless of whether there's a legal way to stop these platforms from their current crusade I don't' see how any one can morally support what they're doing.
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    I think that the First Amendment, as written, is a good thing. I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. I generally think that private organizations and individuals should not be held to that same requirement. I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      > I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. Ok then explain to me why it's ok for these politicians to celebrate removal and de-platforming of individuals and post about it on social media? I'd also like to know why they're allowed to have hearings asking when certain platforms are going to ban specific rival politicians? >I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class. Explain? Why one and not the other? ISP's are businesses too. What I'm seeing when you write this is basically that you'd like to hold businesses you dislike to different standards that ones you don't. I assume you're ok with the social media stuff because it's catering to your opinions currently. You need to ask yourself if Trump had a stranglehold on Silicon Valley like the left currently does would you still be ok with your views? Additionally, once private businesses reach a point where they're too big and they control too much market share they need to be held to different standards. You mentioned ISP's this is exactly what's happened with them. They all start working in coercion just like the handful of big tech companies have. There are no competitors without building a entirely separate infrastructure now.
wonderwonder 5y ago
Federal law prohibits discrimination based on: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and handicap. Not political belief or outlook on the absolute state of things.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  And every one of those prohibitions were added on as time went by....
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    I asked this above and every response avoided it. OK, do you want to add "political affiliation or belief" to the CRA64? Do you understand the potential negative effects of that on people's Freedom of Association?
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      No, I actually don't understand how it'll have any different effect than the already protected list you had above. I'm sure plenty of people dislike associating with lgbtq people and people of different race, religion etc.
      - anoonmoose 5y ago
        "Dislike associating with" is very different from the situation you desire, which would be "forced to associate with people who have advocated for people like me to be killed". And that WILL happen. You are saying that a Jewish bar owner should be forced to serve a guy with a swastika hat on. You can rant about Godwin and edge cases all you want, but if we make political belief and opinion a protected class, you're forcing that bartender to serve a person who wants them dead. With regards to other protected classes- gender, race, religion, country of origin- the people belonging to those classes are so broad that you cannot make generalizations about them like that. When I see a dude wearing a swastika, I can, in my opinion, make some pretty accurate generalizations about them. Again, complain about the case I picked if you want, but all other political beliefs are just a watered down version of this example. Pick a guy wearing a "kill all the white people" shirt if you want, I refuse to advocate for any law or proposal that would force a white guy to serve him a beer.

"We don't serve colored folks here."

dddddddan 5y ago

I think I missed where politicians are a protected class.

Anon1096 5y ago
Can government force companies (say, Parlor or Gab) to display posts from a protected class they wouldn't want to host? Forcing a platform to display women or black or other group's posts seems like it'd be equally anti-First Amendment to me.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  It is my (layman, not-a-lawyer, possibly incorrect) understanding that, if they were to state that they did not allow a protect class to join and banned all members of that class from joining, they would encounter significant legal issues. Which would most likely be avoided by just enacting the policy silently (risky) or becoming an invite-only service (probably legal).
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  Its an interesting question, the gay wedding cake case "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission" was a first test and it seems to say probably not but the final judgement was based on religious freedom. Will probably need another case to determine. Regarding my personal opinion, I think they should be allowed to deny service to who they want as its a core feature of the business. I think this is different than a say black / white restricted eating areas as the core feature of those business' is to feed people, not to facilitate personal race / sexuality based interactions. Just my opinion though I am sure there are edge cases that would make me pause.
CountDrewku 5y ago
This bill wasn't specifically aimed at only politicians. Try reading the entire thing instead of listening to sound bites on CNN.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

I don't know how you are going to define a protected class for conspiracy theorists who incite violence.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Are you referring to Antifa, BLM, or crazy Buffalo guy at the capitol who apparently almost took down the entire government by looking scary?
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  Yes. Twitter should be free to ban them too. Just because you're mad they don't doesn't mean the law is wrong.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    Who said I was mad? I just wanted to make sure you weren't implying a double standard. Is that upsetting you for some reason? Just to get a better understanding.... homosexuals, trans, black, muslim, asian etc. All free to ban too right?
    - anoonmoose 5y ago
      Black and Asian are races. Discrimination based on race violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is illegal. Muslims are members of a religion. Discrimination based on religion is illegal, same as above. In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the CRA64 also covered sexual orientation and gender identity, making discrimination based on being homosexual and transgender illegal. "Opinion, political belief, or political affiliation" is not a protected class, so it is legal to discriminate against people for those reasons. And, in my opinion, it is actually GOOD to discriminate against people for those reasons. It is an expression of ones First Amendment Freedom of Association.
      - CountDrewku 5y ago

anoonmoose 5y ago

Are you suggesting that we should amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include "political opinion, affiliation, or belief" as a new protected class? If so, I think you may not have thought out the potential repercussions of that change.

CountDrewku 5y ago
You don't think people's personal beliefs and allowing speech without repercussions is something that should be protected? I kinda think you're the one not considering repercussions of allowing these platforms to drive social norms. If your opinion holds so much water then you should welcome the opportunity to have public discourse with someone who thinks differently. What I hear when someone supports removing speech is just fear. Fear that their specific opinion won't stand up against someone else's. Regardless of whether there's a legal way to stop these platforms from their current crusade I don't' see how any one can morally support what they're doing.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  I think that the First Amendment, as written, is a good thing. I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. I generally think that private organizations and individuals should not be held to that same requirement. I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    > I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. Ok then explain to me why it's ok for these politicians to celebrate removal and de-platforming of individuals and post about it on social media? I'd also like to know why they're allowed to have hearings asking when certain platforms are going to ban specific rival politicians? >I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class. Explain? Why one and not the other? ISP's are businesses too. What I'm seeing when you write this is basically that you'd like to hold businesses you dislike to different standards that ones you don't. I assume you're ok with the social media stuff because it's catering to your opinions currently. You need to ask yourself if Trump had a stranglehold on Silicon Valley like the left currently does would you still be ok with your views? Additionally, once private businesses reach a point where they're too big and they control too much market share they need to be held to different standards. You mentioned ISP's this is exactly what's happened with them. They all start working in coercion just like the handful of big tech companies have. There are no competitors without building a entirely separate infrastructure now.

wonderwonder 5y ago

Federal law prohibits discrimination based on: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and handicap. Not political belief or outlook on the absolute state of things.

CountDrewku 5y ago
And every one of those prohibitions were added on as time went by....
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  I asked this above and every response avoided it. OK, do you want to add "political affiliation or belief" to the CRA64? Do you understand the potential negative effects of that on people's Freedom of Association?
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    No, I actually don't understand how it'll have any different effect than the already protected list you had above. I'm sure plenty of people dislike associating with lgbtq people and people of different race, religion etc.
    - anoonmoose 5y ago
      "Dislike associating with" is very different from the situation you desire, which would be "forced to associate with people who have advocated for people like me to be killed". And that WILL happen. You are saying that a Jewish bar owner should be forced to serve a guy with a swastika hat on. You can rant about Godwin and edge cases all you want, but if we make political belief and opinion a protected class, you're forcing that bartender to serve a person who wants them dead. With regards to other protected classes- gender, race, religion, country of origin- the people belonging to those classes are so broad that you cannot make generalizations about them like that. When I see a dude wearing a swastika, I can, in my opinion, make some pretty accurate generalizations about them. Again, complain about the case I picked if you want, but all other political beliefs are just a watered down version of this example. Pick a guy wearing a "kill all the white people" shirt if you want, I refuse to advocate for any law or proposal that would force a white guy to serve him a beer.