Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Welcome, ACLU

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#781

Post by gregw134 »

bradleyjg wrote: post #758
gregw134 wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, there's a significant number of religious people in the US that believe they can't ethically support an LGBT wedding by offering services as a photographer, baker, etc. There's a very real tension between the rights of LGBT people to not be discriminated against and the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience. It's a snaggly issue, but hearing this kind of rhetoric…

hearing this kind of rhetoric from Democrats and left-leaning media("they give up rights when the went into business") is exactly what caused the center of the country to swing further right in the last election. Do you have any evidence for that?

I grew up in the Midwest and still visit sometimes. Many people I know think Democrats have lost their minds with this issue (and the bathroom debate).

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#782

Post by TheOsiris »

Miner49er wrote: post #715
lol214365 wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not denying service. Any gay customer can go into an aforementioned bakery and order any of the goods any other customer might order. They just cannot order a cake for a gay wedding -- nor can any straight customer. That is completely different than categorically denying service to black customers.

Okay, so would you then be okay with a bakery not providing service to a wedding between two people of a certain race, because of their race?

What, exactly, is the problem with that? Everyone should have the right to refuse service to whomever they please. Should I be forced to cater to a nazi wedding? I think I should be allowed to deny service to whomever I please. And if people don't like it (as in the case of denying service to certain races) then they should stop going to that business.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#783

Post by int_19h »

monochromatic wrote: post #398
AsyncAwait wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what "extreme left" positions does the ACLU endorse?

I didn't say they were extreme left. I said they only look moderate/apolitical from an extreme-left perspective.

It's actually the other way around. ACLU didn't change their positions in any significant way in several decades now. But the parties and their platforms have changed such that the set of rights and liberties that ACLU promotes now has a "liberal bias", in a sense that it coincides more with the Democratic party platform than it does with the Republican party platform.

But what this tells you is that GOP platform is hostile to civil rights, not that ACLU became partisan.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#784

Post by azrazalea »

19guid wrote: post #554
joshfraser wrote: post #427

I've been a long time supporter of the ACLU. While they're being politicized right now as being anti-Trump, the thing I admire most about them is their consistency in fighting for the rights of everyone. They stick to their principles of free speech and human equality no matter how unpopular the issue or unsavory their client. A good example is back in the 1930s when the ACLU simultaneously defended the rights of bla…

Unfortunately, the ACLU is not always consistent on the issue of free speech. For example, they have frequently argued in favour of compelling speech from Christian bakers, florists and photographers who, for reasons of conscience, are unwilling to provide their creative services for same-sex weddings. [1] [2] [3] [1] http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Jus…

I've always had an internal issue here.

On one hand, I believe heavily in free speech to the point where as a principle (but not a constitutional thing) I find a lot of twitter and facebook's recent behavior awful.

On a personal level, I think religion is stupid and people who refuse to give service to anyone over it equally stupid(especially since if they were actually following Jesus's word they wouldn't be doing it. There's a lot about not judging and jesus hanging out with sinners in the new testament). I try not to let this affect my policy opinions since I try to be logical not emotional about them but I'm not sure how well I succeed. Religious beliefs do seem to be about the only reason people are trying to push for these sorts of things too.

Another point on a personal level is I would not want to work with someone on something like my wedding with someone who secretly hated who I am. Especially if they were being coerced by the government to do it.

So overall I'm altogether confused about the whole issue.

One thing I am sure of is that I am absolutely against any kind of religious exemption to any law whatsoever. Make the law one way or another.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#785

Post by int_19h »

johndevor wrote: post #401

Why is Ycombinator involved in politics now? This didn't used to be the case.

I think it's more of a case of politics affecting the industry significantly.

You can't really fully isolate business from politics, because politics, by definition, affects business. Businesses can tolerate that to some degree, but when the disruption becomes too severe, straightforward pragmatic business decisions start being inherently political.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#786

Post by mmckelvy »

morgante wrote: post #746
mmckelvy wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of the reactions I have seen focus almost exclusively on the restrictions themselves rather than the way they were implemented. Among SV, the media, Hollywood, and elites in general, any call for immigration / entry restrictions almost immediately results in the usual "you are a bigot", "you are a fascist" "we are a nation of immigrants" etc. visceral reactions NOT the kind of more nuanced response you p…

> The majority of the reactions I have seen focus almost exclusively on the restrictions themselves rather than the way they were implemented. That's because the problem is with the restrictions themselves. Banning people, en masse, including existing lawful visa holders and permanent residents is a huge problem. The fact that you haven't seen this information or reaction before says more about you than the facts of…

> The fact that you haven't seen this information or reaction before says more about you than the facts of the case.

And there we have it.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#787

Post by int_19h »

tropo wrote: post #752
anigbrowl wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the other side is proposing to reduce the liberties of those it disagrees with, you're darn right it's not acceptable. It's not like conservatives are forced to get abortions, change gender, become homosexual, or have a different religion, but they complain mightily about other people who want to do such things for themselves, while conservatives present themselves as victims of...well, I'm not too clear on exac…

"not like conservatives are forced to get abortions" What if the conservative hasn't been born yet? Maybe they wouldn't want to be aborted. Do they get a choice, or should we reduce their liberties and victimize them? See, you're ignoring a person's rights. There is more than one person involved, but for only one person is the issue literally a matter of life and death. The fact that such a person can't live alone is…

> What if the conservative hasn't been born yet?

What if they haven't been conceived yet?

> See, you're ignoring a person's rights. There is more than one person involved

That's only true if you believe that a fetus is a person. That's the actual point of contention here: it's not when life begins, it's when personhood begins. Most people who are pro-choice don't believe that a fertilized egg is a person (if only because it is not, and cannot be, self-aware), and thus it cannot have any natural rights of a person. Most people who are pro-life believe that a fertilized egg is a person, and thus all natural rights apply, including the right to life.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#788

Post by charia »

bjourne wrote: post #754
DashRattlesnake wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A long time ago, during the GWB administration, I donated to the ACLU and got placed on the postal mailing lists of innumerable unrelated Democratic-leaning activist organizations. I was disappointed by that, since the partisan association cheapens their work and opens them up to attack.

Are you sure you didn't tick the "Yes, send me information about related campaigns box"? Because this is what their privacy statement reads: "When we give you an opportunity to voluntarily submit information about yourself, we may give you the option of indicating that you permit us to share that data with other parties such as coalition partners or specific legislators. We will not share your data with such parties…

I think the point being made is that the people who his information was shared with leaned toward one political affiliation.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#789

Post by k-mcgrady »

sidlls wrote: post #359
katm wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be cynical about us bringing in the ACLU, but in the words of Maya Angelou: “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

In that case, I fully expect to see continued activity on this front even after the next Democratic adminstration and congress continues the Bush-Obama-Trump programs that are (finally) meeting resistance. I won't hold my breath waiting for that, though. Usually what happens is that when one's favored party regains power the criticism suddenly disappears.

You need to stop, just for a second, and not look at this as a Democrat/Republican thing. When you have tens of thousands of people protesting it in countries outside the US (massive protests in London and around the UK yesterday) it's clearly beyond partisan politics and just about the issue. It's not red vs blue and it's certainly not left vs right considering our right is only about as right as your left.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#790

Post by pazimzadeh »

spaginal wrote: post #185
wavefunction wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why were Saudi Arabia and Egypt left off the list? That's where most of the 9/11 hijackers and planners hailed from. I think you're hearing echoes in your "sound mind."

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are allies in that region with functioning governments that we don't have emigration issues with and can vet anyone coming over from. Of the 7 nations on the list, Iran has the only functioning government, but is a huge state sponsor of terrorism against our allies in the region and we are not allied with them. To claim this is a bigoted move by Trump because of Islam is a simple and narrow min…

How does banning Iranians from coming over fight state sponsored terrorism? Has there been a single instance of an Iranian traveling or immigrating to the US and committing an act of terrorism?
Post reply on HN