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

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#831

Post by mschuster91 »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #87
rexreed wrote: post #21

Does YC have a page of their particular positions on various political matters which guides their decisions on which non-profits to support and which ones not to? I'm genuinely interested in reading a "platform" as it were on what YC believes and is willing to support.

Yes this is somewhat dangerous for YC. I would like to see that this was planned before November and their support was not determined by who the president turned out to be. Combined with the outspoken politics of Paul Graham1, I get the feeling people who identify as conservatives may not feel welcome at YC. 1 http://twitter.com/paulg EDIT: I changed "conservatives" to "people who identify as conservatives" to clarif…

> Combined with the outspoken politics of Paul Graham1, I get the feeling people who identify as conservatives may not feel welcome at YC.

Peter Thiel is still a partner at YC. So there is someone high-profile openly allied with Trump at YC, YC is not as radical left-wing as some people try to paint it.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#833

Post by tropo »

int_19h wrote: post #787
tropo wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 bec…

The argument ("not like conservatives are forced to get abortions") is denying that there is a difference of opinion here.

Note that you quickly went from "fetus" to "fertilized egg". After a certain point there are brainwaves (what we use to determine death in difficult cases) and even a response to pain. If that doesn't count, then why not pull the plug on anybody needing life support equipment?

Not every conservative is insisting on personhood for fertilized eggs. For example, Bobby Jindal accepted early termination pills.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#834

Post by lotu »

19guid wrote: post #707
danielsju6 wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusal of service based race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation is not protected speech. It's discrimination. They gave up rights when they went into business.

I don't think refusal of service is itself protected speech either, but we're not talking about the government restricting protected speech. We're talking about the government compelling an individual to engage in protected speech, like taking a wedding photograph. > The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the First Amendment protects an "individual freedom of mind"—e.g., (1943), which affirmed the right not…

Personally, I've always wondered if the people who don't want to make cakes for a gay wedding/provide flowers would be willing to subcontract that out to someone else. When you buy a cake you don't generally expect that specific person will be making that cake. This would allow them to not participate while at the same time protecting people from discrimination.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#835

Post by jbmorgado »

Miner49er wrote: post #776
TheOsiris wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should a Jewish restaurant be compelled to serve neo-nazis wearing Nazi uniforms?

Probably not. That's a very different situation. Neo-nazis make a choice to be neo-nazis.

So, according to your argument, it should be ok to denny someone service based on their religion as well.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#836

Post by wahern »

DashRattlesnake wrote: post #644
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…

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.

I once almost donated to the NRA several years ago. But on their main website were a few links to some anti-abortion/pro-life organizations. (And, AFAICT, it wasn't advertisements served over a third-party system.) I never went back.

I don't think the ACLU is nearly as partisan aligned or affiliated like that. But they're definitely more aligned, as a political matter, with the Democratic party. Partly for historical reasons (e.g. school busing, voting rights, criminal rights, etc.) But I totally get what you're saying.

The other part of it, though, is that we all need to learn to be a little more tolerant of political organizations and politicians taking stances that we personally disagree with. It's inevitable. To demand otherwise leads to more extremism, and leads to more fragmentation. If all we have are 10,000 smaller advocacy organizations, they're all going to drift left or right to a much greater extent. The only way to arrest that shift is to use yourself as an anchor; support the organization but then be sure to voice your opposition when they assume an inappropriate policy stance or affiliation.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#837

Post by dnautics »

grandalf wrote: post #823
bbctol wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the ACLU is by definition anti-government, though. Not in the sense that they want it destroyed, just in the sense that they'll always be the opposition to the executive branch. So they're "anti-Trump," but not in a way that's easily politicized; if any Democratic executives tried to punish people for being pro-Trump, the ACLU would be against them too.

> the ACLU is by definition anti-government I'd rephrase that as "in favor of the rule of law". Governments break the law all the time and need some form of checks and balances to correct wrongdoing.

I think the ACLU goes beyond the rule of law, and sometimes will push the line on interpretations of the law to limit government power (which I think in a fine thing to be doing).

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#838

Post by therealdrag0 »

cptskippy wrote: post #598
buechs wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's an option on the donation page where you can opt-in to the ACLU sharing your details with other charitable organizations. (the default is opt-out).

I verified via the wayback machine and the page is the same today as it was when I made my donation. I'm fairly certain I would not have checked that box. I make it a point to read checkboxes very carefully as companies are so prone to anti-patterns to get you to agree to share your info or join mailing lists.

One data point: I have no idea if I checked the box, but I'm a regular subscriber and I've never had solicitation from any of those other companies.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#839

Post by dnautics »

danielsju6 wrote: post #829
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…

On the other hand... it's illegal. They shouldn't be business owners if our social contract hurts their feelings. Commerce is a regulated activity.

You could make the exact same statement about Eric Garner:

Eric Garner shouldn't be in the business of selling loose cigarettes, because our social contract prohibits that sort of activity. Commerce is a regulated activity, and Garner's death is an unfortunate but justifiable collateral damage of the police's clear duty to enforce the social contract.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#840

Post by dnautics »

danielsju6 wrote: post #824
19guid wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think refusal of service is itself protected speech either, but we're not talking about the government restricting protected speech. We're talking about the government compelling an individual to engage in protected speech, like taking a wedding photograph. > The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the First Amendment protects an "individual freedom of mind"—e.g., (1943), which affirmed the right not…

Compelling a business, there's a big difference. The government can't order you, as an individual, to bake someone a cake; but if you're a business discrimination is prohibited. Engaging in commerce is a regulated activity per our Constitution.

actually that is exactly what the government did. The bakery didn't refuse to serve homosexuals. They did refused to bake a cake with say, two males at the top (paraphrasing the case).

EDIT: looked it up, they didn't want to bake a cake with bert & ernie and a pro-gay-marriage slogan.

Post reply on HN