4 ms·

Where's the line between providing a public service, and "reserve the right to refuse service to any customer?" To give a dead horse another kick: can a bakery

Where's the line between providing a public service, and "reserve the right to refuse service to any customer?" To give a dead horse another kick: can a bakery refuse to make a "gay wedding cake?" how about a "nazi wedding cake?" How about this one? https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-03-16/a-missouri-radio-station-still-broadcasts-kremlin-programming-even-as-russia-invades-ukraine https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-03-16/a-missouri-radio-statio... Is this a free press providing service for cash without prejudice, or is this collaborating with the enemy? The principles of free speech, as articulated in boring historical contexts, still matter. Free association, freedom to trade, all those good things that the conspiracy theorists have said are under assault, are under assault. The interchangeable panic of the day seems secondary to the drive to forget why we had articulated those principles in the first place.

version_five 5y ago
This is a complex topic that's hard to write a short comment about. Overall I'd understand conscientious objection to helping the Russian offensive in any way, as well as a long held desire not to do business in a particular country, even if for political reasons. What I don't like is operations that clearly have no connection to the war pulling out from an existing business of serving regular Russians because of mob pressure, like McDonalds for example. They are not harming anyone by staying (except maybe those eating the food ;) - I love McDonalds food, to be clear), it is just pure virtue signaling, and beating up on ordinary people. Two wrongs don't make a right.
uberman 5y ago
I'm not aware of any US law that states: "an entity must do business in any given foreign country" nor any US law that states: "an entity must not terminate a business in a given foreign country" Given that, I don't see any issue with a company choosing to exit or suspend business in Russia or the US for that matter.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  > an entity must do business in any given foreign country Here's some examples: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/23/us-states-use-anti-boycott-laws-punish-responsible-businesses https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/23/us-states-use-anti-boyco...
  - uberman 5y ago
    Those laws don't forbid a company from exiting or suspending international operations. They say that if you do so specifically in Israel, then a given US State government will not do business with you. While similar, it neither applies to Russia nor prohibits the suspension or termination of an international arm of your business.
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      You must do business with Israel or you will face these defined consequences. You must not murder someone or you will face these defined consequences. I don't see a distinction between the two. They both aim to stop a behavior with threats of punishment.
      - uberman 5y ago
        I personally see a clear distinction between punishment for a felony and a refusal by the State of RI to do "State business" with me or for that matter, being grounded for too much phone use. I guess you are entitled to your worldview.
        willcipriano 5y ago
        "We aren't in violation of Roe vs Wade, no. We just passed a law that the state won't do business with a firm that has any employees that have ever had an abortion." These word games remind me of civil asset forfeiture, "oh no, we aren't charging you with a crime we are charging your car and cars don't have rights so we don't have to have a trial. Hand over the keys."
blaser-waffle 5y ago
> To give a dead horse another kick: can a bakery refuse to make a "gay wedding cake?" how about a "nazi wedding cake?" That law applies to US persons in the US. This is not a globally ratified treaty or a UN mandate. If you think you can enforce that law in Saudi Arabia or Hungary or China you are free to try. But I get that you're using it in a broader moral sense, to which I'll respond: being gay didn't kill anyone. Plenty of gay folks not killing people all the time; I've walked through The Castro and didn't get murdered once. Russia meanwhile made a very deliberate moral choice to launch a large-scale war against another country, and his demonstrated again and again that it makes bad-faith claims and engages in shady behavior all for the benefit of a handful of Oligarchs.

version_five 5y ago

This is a complex topic that's hard to write a short comment about. Overall I'd understand conscientious objection to helping the Russian offensive in any way, as well as a long held desire not to do business in a particular country, even if for political reasons. What I don't like is operations that clearly have no connection to the war pulling out from an existing business of serving regular Russians because of mob pressure, like McDonalds for example. They are not harming anyone by staying (except maybe those eating the food ;) - I love McDonalds food, to be clear), it is just pure virtue signaling, and beating up on ordinary people. Two wrongs don't make a right.

uberman 5y ago

I'm not aware of any US law that states: "an entity must do business in any given foreign country" nor any US law that states: "an entity must not terminate a business in a given foreign country" Given that, I don't see any issue with a company choosing to exit or suspend business in Russia or the US for that matter.

willcipriano 5y ago
> an entity must do business in any given foreign country Here's some examples: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/23/us-states-use-anti-boycott-laws-punish-responsible-businesses https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/23/us-states-use-anti-boyco...
- uberman 5y ago
  Those laws don't forbid a company from exiting or suspending international operations. They say that if you do so specifically in Israel, then a given US State government will not do business with you. While similar, it neither applies to Russia nor prohibits the suspension or termination of an international arm of your business.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    You must do business with Israel or you will face these defined consequences. You must not murder someone or you will face these defined consequences. I don't see a distinction between the two. They both aim to stop a behavior with threats of punishment.
    - uberman 5y ago
      I personally see a clear distinction between punishment for a felony and a refusal by the State of RI to do "State business" with me or for that matter, being grounded for too much phone use. I guess you are entitled to your worldview.
      - willcipriano 5y ago
        "We aren't in violation of Roe vs Wade, no. We just passed a law that the state won't do business with a firm that has any employees that have ever had an abortion." These word games remind me of civil asset forfeiture, "oh no, we aren't charging you with a crime we are charging your car and cars don't have rights so we don't have to have a trial. Hand over the keys."

blaser-waffle 5y ago

> To give a dead horse another kick: can a bakery refuse to make a "gay wedding cake?" how about a "nazi wedding cake?" That law applies to US persons in the US. This is not a globally ratified treaty or a UN mandate. If you think you can enforce that law in Saudi Arabia or Hungary or China you are free to try. But I get that you're using it in a broader moral sense, to which I'll respond: being gay didn't kill anyone. Plenty of gay folks not killing people all the time; I've walked through The Castro and didn't get murdered once. Russia meanwhile made a very deliberate moral choice to launch a large-scale war against another country, and his demonstrated again and again that it makes bad-faith claims and engages in shady behavior all for the benefit of a handful of Oligarchs.