921–930 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just wonder if they'd be as passionate about defending civil liberties if a devout Muslim photographer refused to photograph a Bar Mitzvah of a gay Jew. Would that be illegal? Or does this only apply to Christians?
Why are you so determined to find fault with the ACLU? Why the presumption of bad faith?
I used to be an ACLU supporter, but stopped after their main objectives switched to more of what I describe as matters of feelings , E.g., whether a man who identifies as a women can use a women's bathroom in Georgia, or whether the term man or women can ever be used at all. In my opinion most the ACLU LGBT agenda has been a useless war on words , yet it's taking on a greater and greater importance in the organizatio…
"A man who identifies as a woman" is a disingenuous statement--it is leading with some sort of made up notion of what their gender should be ("a man who..."), which is a false framing in the first place. Transgender women are women. They are not men with a qualifier.
Moving on: transgender bathroom rights matter. Access to public bathrooms is necessary for access to public spaces and is furthermore generally an indicator of free unencumbered movement in public. Therefore, state-sponsored humiliation tactics are indicating a stance that trans people are not welcome in a public space. This is problematic, and furthermore is certainly a matter of civil liberty. The ACLU should take those cases and it's important to stand up against steps to marginalize and "other" groups of people. As public space is necessary to exercise certain rights in the constitution, particularly the first amendment, this matters at a very deep level.
To give a clear and specific example: a friend of mine is no longer safe visiting his family in North Carolina, as he is trans. He must either choose to violate the law in public to fit in (he passes as a man), or by following the law out himself or put himself at risk. He no longer has the liberty to visit his family like you or I do, without additional--potentially severe--legal or physical risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you so determined to find fault with the ACLU? Why the presumption of bad faith?
Where did I find fault with ACLU? This problem is much broader than them. They're merely a reflection of the larger society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
TWISI the org chart of the US Government is basically the constitution a the top & each branch of government below reporting to the constitution. Unfortunately the Constitution can't call up the president or file lawsuits on it's own so the ACLU takes it upon themselves to make an argument on behalf of the big boss. So many business people who want to be politicians mistake the presidency for being CEO. The president…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For context, I've got 8 years of ACLU emails with quotes like: > Despite initial assurances that he would veto this outrageous bill, President Obama will now be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.
Funny how YC didn't consider it sensible to sponsor ACLU back then. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the subject of abortion and drugs, it's fairly straightforward. ACLU is not a "states' rights" organization. It is an "individual rights" organization. It sues states for infringing people's rights as much as it sues the feds. So from their perspective, if they can enshrine the protection of a right at a federal level, they'll go for it, because it's easier than forcing all 50 states to do the same.
Yes, it may be "easier" for the ACLU to abuse/"reinterpret" the Constitution rather than work to amend it or work within its strict framework... but doing so makes things worse for more people in the longterm. States' Rights limit the Federal Government from being so powerful that it can more easily violate civil rights... a bigger picture which ACLU should take into account. Likewise, "legislating from the bench" ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it hasn't. The rule has been the same for years: most politics are off topic. Check it out: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . The difference between "most" and "all" is significant. HN can't be immune to what's going on in the outside world and we've learned from years of experience that it doesn't make sense to try. At the same time, we're not going to let politics overwhelm the site, since that…
I wish I had the time to gather the data. Someone please do this. Make sure to normalize against total activity. I'm a hn user since at least 9.8 years ago (my first HN handle was different than current, which is 7 years old). To my impression as a relatively apolitical person, the site has become MUCH more political in the past year. I may be wrong in that though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The cases I listed above all involve sole proprietorships or closely-held companies, so compelling the business to engage in protected speech is tantamount to compelling the individual who owns the business to engage in protected speech. I agree the states and Congress can regulate commerce, but those regulations are still subject to the First Amendment.
The moment you start a business you adapt an additional role to the one you already have ("private person"). In this role you have specific rights and obligations while you're in that role. It's the same reason that a person who is a police officer is allowed to arrest you while on duty (in his role as a police officer), but not when he is off duty (and in his role as a private citizen).