5 ms·

What's inexcusable is for a business entity to apply discrimination on moral grounds. Ideally, politicians should also stay away from the moral debate. We've se

by hirako2000 5y ago

What's inexcusable is for a business entity to apply discrimination on moral grounds. Ideally, politicians should also stay away from the moral debate. We've seen what this can lead to. Reality here is that godaddy gave an unreasonably small time window for a site shutdown, simply because of their fear of the backslash from the public causing PR damage hence revenue loss.

ericmay 5y ago
Which would be fine, except ya know not, serving cakes to gay people. The problem is certain groups want to have their cake and eat it too. There is no consistency.
- meowster 5y ago
  The baker offered to serve his cakes to gay people, he just didn't want to be compelled to create a cake he didn't like.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    GoDaddy offered to serve websites to Texans, they just didn't want to be compelled to serve a website they didn't like.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
> What's inexcusable is for a business entity to apply discrimination on moral grounds. Should a business be "moral less" and allow all behavior? The idea that we should embrace cold, profit-only business entities is much more reprehensible to me.
- jaldhar 5y ago
  Yes, related to their area of business. What is “cold” about making profits to you? Personally, the locus of morality is my religious/ethnic community. Businesses should focus on making money so they can pay people who can use that money to be moral in their own communities.
pshushereba 5y ago
What doesn't sit right with me is that a lot of this stuff is becoming very polarized. The same thing happened with Parler, when AWS et al just decided that it was too toxic to do business with and suspended the platform's infrastructure. It seems to me that nobody on either side wants to tolerate freedom of speech. When you see something you don't like, the answer is tolerance, not "This person/thing/company" should go away and never come back. I'm just starting to see it far too often where something gets "cancelled" because it makes some subset of people uncomfortable. Inevitably the pendulum will swing the other way, and those who engage in this kind of activity aren't going to like the precedent they've set.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

ericmay 5y ago

Which would be fine, except ya know not, serving cakes to gay people. The problem is certain groups want to have their cake and eat it too. There is no consistency.

meowster 5y ago
The baker offered to serve his cakes to gay people, he just didn't want to be compelled to create a cake he didn't like.
- ericmay 5y ago
  GoDaddy offered to serve websites to Texans, they just didn't want to be compelled to serve a website they didn't like.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

> What's inexcusable is for a business entity to apply discrimination on moral grounds. Should a business be "moral less" and allow all behavior? The idea that we should embrace cold, profit-only business entities is much more reprehensible to me.

jaldhar 5y ago
Yes, related to their area of business. What is “cold” about making profits to you? Personally, the locus of morality is my religious/ethnic community. Businesses should focus on making money so they can pay people who can use that money to be moral in their own communities.

pshushereba 5y ago

What doesn't sit right with me is that a lot of this stuff is becoming very polarized. The same thing happened with Parler, when AWS et al just decided that it was too toxic to do business with and suspended the platform's infrastructure. It seems to me that nobody on either side wants to tolerate freedom of speech. When you see something you don't like, the answer is tolerance, not "This person/thing/company" should go away and never come back. I'm just starting to see it far too often where something gets "cancelled" because it makes some subset of people uncomfortable. Inevitably the pendulum will swing the other way, and those who engage in this kind of activity aren't going to like the precedent they've set.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]