3 ms·

You have done nothing to refute any of these points because you do not understand the fundamental legal concepts at play here. You have expressed your opinion,

You have done nothing to refute any of these points because you do not understand the fundamental legal concepts at play here. You have expressed your opinion, which you are certainly able to have, but the objective reality is that freedom of association applying to businesses is incredibly old and consistently reiterated precedent. If you want to change it in countries where this is the law of the land, you're going to need to pass new laws (and in the case of the US, amend the constitution.) But the problem is that you seem to misunderstand the difference between being protected from the government compelling speech/association/etc. with the law compelling the protection from other individuals, businesses, etc. from being able to take action because of their disagreement with what you said. Frankly, I have no idea how the world you are envisioning would function. It would be a neverending argument over what side trumps the other in every disagreement of this nature. It's just not viable and this is one of the reasons that the precedent here is so strong and so universal.

littlestymaar 1y ago
> that freedom of association applying to businesses is incredibly old and consistently reiterated precedent. I don't know why you bring that up though, as it has no relationship with whether or not the businesses and up having human rights on their own. > is incredibly old and consistently reiterated precedent. Again, this is irrelevant, as the age of a practice has no impact on how legitimate it is (slavery used to be incredibly old and reiterated ”). > and in the case of the US, amend the constitution. Nah, appointing the right Supreme Court justices is enough to create or destroy constitutional rights. > Frankly, I have no idea how the world you are envisioning would function It doesn't take that much imagination though, all you have to look at the real world, especially on the other side of the Atlantic: here businesses just can't put arbitrary restrictions that aren't backed by legitimate interest, and the said restriction must be necessary and proportionate to the achievement of the said legitimate interest. They simply cannot say “I'm free to do whatever I want” because they definitely aren't. In fact I'm pretty sure that even in the US they cannot either, which is why Visa is framing it in a fraud reduction procedure.

littlestymaar 1y ago

> that freedom of association applying to businesses is incredibly old and consistently reiterated precedent. I don't know why you bring that up though, as it has no relationship with whether or not the businesses and up having human rights on their own. > is incredibly old and consistently reiterated precedent. Again, this is irrelevant, as the age of a practice has no impact on how legitimate it is (slavery used to be incredibly old and reiterated ”). > and in the case of the US, amend the constitution. Nah, appointing the right Supreme Court justices is enough to create or destroy constitutional rights. > Frankly, I have no idea how the world you are envisioning would function It doesn't take that much imagination though, all you have to look at the real world, especially on the other side of the Atlantic: here businesses just can't put arbitrary restrictions that aren't backed by legitimate interest, and the said restriction must be necessary and proportionate to the achievement of the said legitimate interest. They simply cannot say “I'm free to do whatever I want” because they definitely aren't. In fact I'm pretty sure that even in the US they cannot either, which is why Visa is framing it in a fraud reduction procedure.