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

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#791

Post by snowwrestler »

gregw134 wrote: post #757
literallycancer wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between the wedding photographer who won't take a picture of a gay couple, and a bar/shop owner with "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" policy?

The wedding photographer believes, because of their religion, that it would be unethical to participate in the wedding.

Business owners cited religious reasons to deny service to black people too. The KKK was founded as a nominally Christian organization.

Folks who fought for Jim Crow laws did not view themselves as willfully evil people who discriminated for no reason. They viewed their own support of segregation as a principled moral stance. That's why they fought so hard.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#792

Post by int_19h »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #425
toast0 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not defending the 2nd amendment is different than opposing it. You could consider donating to the ACLU and also to an organization that defends the 2nd amendment; assuming there's no blanket organization to your liking. There are many organizations specializing in the 2nd amendment, so it makes some amount of sense for the ACLU to let them do that work, while it's more of a generalist.

>Not defending the 2nd amendment is different than opposing it. That's not how it works, at least not in my mind. When dealing with something that is assailed as frequently as gun rights, lack of support is the same as opposition. I want an organization that supports the Constitution, completely and fully.

ACLU is not that organization, and doesn't claim to be.

But then I hope you're not sending a single cent of your money to NRA, either? I mean, they also don't "support the Constitution, completely and fully", right?

Or is that okay because they're explicitly scoped to the Second Amendment?

If so, then ACLU is in the same exact boat, being explicitly scoped to everything other than the Second. And then some: ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, not American Constitutional Liberties Union - US Constitution to them is a tool to aid in protecting the civil rights they care about, it's not a definitive list of rights that are worth defending.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#793

Post by int_19h »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #191
wilsynet wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not hypocrisy, it's just their point of view on the 2nd amendment differs from your view. ACLU position: Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.

And the Supreme Court has ruled, again and again, that it is an individual right. How is it that the ACLU is an originalist when it comes to every amendment except the Second?

ACLU is not originalist - what made you believe that it is?

They protect civil rights, not whatever people who wrote the Constitution 200 years go thought civil rights should be.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#794

Post by bradleyjg »

19guid wrote: post #761
literallycancer wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between the wedding photographer who won't take a picture of a gay couple, and a bar/shop owner with "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" policy?

Serving drinks is not protected speech; taking a photograph is.

There's a decent, but by no means slam dunk, case that wedding photographers engage in protected expressive conduct. The case is significantly weaker one for bakers and florists.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#795

Post by Miner49er »

TheOsiris wrote: post #782
Miner49er wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No you shouldn't be forced to cater to a Nazi wedding in my opinion. A person chooses to be a Nazi, but a person doesn't choose their race. It's unfair and dangerous to treat people differently for something about themselves that they can't control.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#796

Post by int_19h »

LordKano wrote: post #442
mcphage wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL at all the liberals giving money to a group that defends the constitution, how silly is that amirite?

The ACLU doesn't so much defend the Constitution as use it as a weapon. Neo-Nazis get denied a permit to march through a black neighborhood and the ACLU is there. Washington DC violates the second amendment for decades and the ACLU is silent.

ACLU is not in the business of protecting the Second Amendment, and they're upfront about it.

NRA is not in the business of protecting the First Amendment, and they're upfront about it.

Why do you have a different standard for ACLU compared to NRA? You're saying that you're unwilling to financially supporting them, not based on what they do, but based on what they do not. How does what they do not diminish the utility of what they do?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#797

Post by int_19h »

savagej wrote: post #600
anigbrowl wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the American Civil Liberties Union, Not the Union of Americans' Civil Liberties. 'American' in this context refers to the provenance of the civil liberties in question, not some sort of property interest. The more you know!

Clearly I didn't know we had a one world government. If American liberties are a concept to apply over the whole world, the ACLU should be encouraging the whole world to a adopt the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

American liberties apply everywhere in the world where the US has jurisdiction. This definitely includes visa holders.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#798

Post by finid »

snowwrestler wrote: post #768
alanh wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You used the passive voice, “the ACLU are being politicized right now as being anti-Trump.” The ACLU, in their official communications and advertisements, have been actively and explicitly anti-Trump. Witness their current 'pinned tweet' for example: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/825805289572151298 I don’t really mind that, but let’s not ignore that the ACLU intentionally earned their reputation as an opponent of t…

They are telling people to fight back against Trump's executive orders that threaten civil liberties. They are not anti-Trump, in that if Trump rescinded his problematic EOs, the ACLU would stop fighting him. The issue is not the man, it's the policy.

The issue is not the man, it's the policy.

But how do you separate the man from his policies? That would be like trying to separate a man from his religious conviction. A mans policies reflect what he believes in.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#799

Post by problems »

zardeh wrote: post #669
problems wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you could have a good argument about most of those, but the affirmative action one is pretty damning. That's blatantly political and in no way related to constitutional protections. There are plenty of good civil liberties related ways to look at race, but affirmative action is not one of them.

>but the affirmative action one is pretty damning The supreme court agrees that affirmative action is constitutional (within certain bounds), see the recent Fisher v. UT case, or Bakke for the original example.

I'm not saying it's not constitutional, just that it is unrelated to civil liberties and should probably be outside their purview if they're to be a politically neutral organization.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#800

Post by lol214365 »

wfo wrote: post #764
lol214365 wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU has completely deviated from their declared mission -- protecting civil liberties -- in recent weeks. The ACLU opposes a border wall. Who's civil liberties are violated by a border wall? The ACLU opposes the immigration and refugee EO. Who's civil liberties are violated by foreign nationals not being permitted into the United States?

Green card holding permanent residents of the US who were denied entry without due process are having their civil liberties violated. Everyone who was detained by CBP explicitly in illegal violation of the order of a federal judge had their civil liberties violated. Those parts of the order were rescinded because it was obviously illegal, but their rights were still denied. That's the easiest, inarguable example.

What procedural guarantees are permanent residents guaranteed under US law, that these people were not granted when they were denied entry, ie. what is 'due process' in the context of entry for permanent residents?
Post reply on HN