4 ms·

> A company choosing not to do business with someone seems to be a much strong free speech claim in my opinion. If my business chooses to not do business with

by anamax 5y ago

> A company choosing not to do business with someone seems to be a much strong free speech claim in my opinion. If my business chooses to not do business with "those people", you're okay? Or, does it depend on which "those people"? Note that current US law says that businesses can't refuse to do business"those people" for certain definitions of "those people."

bjourne 5y ago
I believe that only applies to the hospitality business, doesn't it? A B2B company could refuse to do business with a company for any reason, including the skin color of that company's ceo. Furthermore, "those people" very much excludes nationality otherwise the sanctions against Iran would have been unconstitutional.
- anamax 5y ago
  > I believe that only applies to the hospitality business, doesn't it? Nope - while 42 U.S.C. §2000a was "public accommodations", it isn't the only law in this area. > Furthermore, "those people" very much excludes nationality otherwise the sanctions against Iran would have been unconstitutional. Nope on three levels. The first one is that the groups protected by 42 USC (and the other laws) are "race, color, religion, or national origin and it's tough to see how that doesn't cover nationality. The second one is that the laws for the first part aren't part of the constitution. The third one is the regulation/law in question did NOT say anything about race. It said you can't do business with Iranian-country entities and had the "notwithstanding" boilerplate, creating an exemption to the other laws, an exemption limited to Iranian-country entities. That exemption did NOT cover Iranians without the country connection.
  - bjourne 5y ago
    But the laws you are citing presupposes discriminatory intent. That is, the actions we are discussing must be motivated by a desire to discriminate. That intent cannot be established here as the claim that the motive for refusing to do business with Russian nationals in Russia and Russian companies is to put economic pressure on the Russian government.
    - anamax 5y ago
      The laws in question do not mention discriminatory intent.
uberman 5y ago
You need to choose a play field and stick to it. If the argument is legal as you suggest then Thawte must be supported for compliance with the law. If your play field is "free speech" then thier right to make a statement must also be respected. In either case Thawte must be supported.

by anamax 5y ago

bjourne 5y ago

I believe that only applies to the hospitality business, doesn't it? A B2B company could refuse to do business with a company for any reason, including the skin color of that company's ceo. Furthermore, "those people" very much excludes nationality otherwise the sanctions against Iran would have been unconstitutional.

anamax 5y ago
> I believe that only applies to the hospitality business, doesn't it? Nope - while 42 U.S.C. §2000a was "public accommodations", it isn't the only law in this area. > Furthermore, "those people" very much excludes nationality otherwise the sanctions against Iran would have been unconstitutional. Nope on three levels. The first one is that the groups protected by 42 USC (and the other laws) are "race, color, religion, or national origin and it's tough to see how that doesn't cover nationality. The second one is that the laws for the first part aren't part of the constitution. The third one is the regulation/law in question did NOT say anything about race. It said you can't do business with Iranian-country entities and had the "notwithstanding" boilerplate, creating an exemption to the other laws, an exemption limited to Iranian-country entities. That exemption did NOT cover Iranians without the country connection.
- bjourne 5y ago
  But the laws you are citing presupposes discriminatory intent. That is, the actions we are discussing must be motivated by a desire to discriminate. That intent cannot be established here as the claim that the motive for refusing to do business with Russian nationals in Russia and Russian companies is to put economic pressure on the Russian government.
  - anamax 5y ago
    The laws in question do not mention discriminatory intent.

uberman 5y ago

You need to choose a play field and stick to it. If the argument is legal as you suggest then Thawte must be supported for compliance with the law. If your play field is "free speech" then thier right to make a statement must also be respected. In either case Thawte must be supported.