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

PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

paypal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#61

Post by zeveb »

kstrauser wrote: post #36
zeveb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is your point? That being awful is ok? No, that being awful (by some folks' lights) should be legal — i.e., that violent force (which is the ultimate backstop of any law) should not be employed to force people to be nice to one another. > This is a religious thing in this case so a government should not be in the business of protecting one religion or any religious belief Government shouldn't be involved, peri…

> Government shouldn't be involved, period. If someone wishes to do business with someone else, good (or bad) for him; if not, good (or bad) for him all the same. First, that case law was settled over 50 years ago when we ruled segregation illegal. Contrary to your wishes, that ship has sailed. Second, businesses are permitted to serve the public and subject to lots of laws. You can't say "I don't want to comply with…

> There's no meaningful line you can draw between "I don't sell cake to gay people" and "I don't sell cake to black people". Both are explicitly illegal in most places and morally reprehensible in all.

I agree that both are morally reprehensible.

Can you see the difference between refusing to bake a cake for a gay customer and refusing to bake a cake with the message, 'congratulations to Tim & Steve on their wedding'? The first is about people; the second is about speech. I can live with protecting people; I cannot tolerate compelling speech.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#62

Post by zeveb »

gstn wrote: post #33
zeveb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is your point? That being awful is ok? No, that being awful (by some folks' lights) should be legal — i.e., that violent force (which is the ultimate backstop of any law) should not be employed to force people to be nice to one another. > This is a religious thing in this case so a government should not be in the business of protecting one religion or any religious belief Government shouldn't be involved, peri…

So, let me understand: do you think that a person running a lunch counter should be able to refuse to do business with someone because of, let's say, their skin color?

> do you think that a person running a lunch counter should be able to refuse to do business with someone because of, let's say, their skin color?

I think such a person would be wrong, but that neither you nor I have the right to beat him for refusing to serve; indeed, if we use violence to compel him to work, then we have reduced him to a state of involuntary servitude — i.e., slavery.

So, let me understand: do you think people should be beaten and killed because they refuse to do business with someone?

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#63

Post by zeveb »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #25
throwaway5752 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be interesting if it were in any way relevant to what HB2 were about. * it overturns a local law regarding who can use a bathroom, and removes the ability for anyone but the state to legislate that (takes power away from cities and counties) * it removes the ability of city and counties to enforce hiring standards on government contractors (minimum wage, discrimination practices, safety standards) in any w…

It's pretty clear the OP is a troll, but at least we got your enlightening response from it. The law is even more distasteful than I knew.

> It's pretty clear the OP is a troll

I certainly don't believe I'm a troll; I think that I've posted reasonably compelling (if brief) arguments in favour of tolerance and against using the violence of the State against dissenters, and have decried PayPal's advocacy for intolerance and State violence.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#64

Post by joshuaheard »

gecko wrote: post #57
joshuaheard wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the law, and I don't see where it does that. I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not, or thinks he is a woman. The law provides an accommodation for single stall bathrooms for any gender. I think Paypal is being the troll here.

> I read the law, and I don't see where it does that. That's okay; a lot of people have reading deficits, and in fact my company works a lot to help people with them. One thing we've found helps with reading deficits is breaking things down, so let's do that. First, load up http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pd... in another browser window. That's the actual bill text, presented as a diff. HB2…

All they changed was to add the word "biological" to "race, religion, color, national origin, or biological sex". Sexual orientation and gender identity were never in the state law. This is not the gutting of discrimination laws you describe.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#65

Post by joshuaheard »

EdwardMSmith wrote: post #53
joshuaheard wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the law, and I don't see where it does that. I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not, or thinks he is a woman. The law provides an accommodation for single stall bathrooms for any gender. I think Paypal is being the troll here.

> I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not. Why? What is the underlying reason for that? Is it different if your (hypothetical?) son of the same age might have a woman (regardless of dress) in with him? I'm genuinely curious.

No, I don't want my 10 year old daughter seeing strange men urinating and defecating, or in various stages of undress in a public restroom.

But, if the issue is whether we should have separate bathrooms for the genders, let's have that conversation instead of forcing it on society in the guise of discrimination.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#67

Post by Grishnakh »

JeremyNT wrote: post #50
Grishnakh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the people of NC are getting exactly what they deserve. They voted for this. And spare me the whining about gerrymandering. The Governor is elected by everyone in the state; gerrymandering has no effect on that election. If this were really an issue of gerrymandering, we would have seen a crappy bill passed by the Legislature, and sent to the governor, and promptly vetoed because the governor more closely repre…

There are two NCs. One is currently in power; the rural, poor, uneducated. The other is more modern. We live in cities and we want our homes to be good places to live for all people. You can view maps of this state and how it votes, and the places this law will negatively impact (places where modern industry might have otherwise come) did not vote for this. There is a war here: rural versus urban. The rural counties…

The problem is that you're all part of the same State, so your votes are all equally counted (more or less; for Governor, they are). So I have to paint you all with the same brush: that's just the way the system is set up. Sorry. I do realize (as should anyone) that not everyone in any given State is the same, and that every state has different regions where people think differently. This rural vs. urban fight isn't confined to NC, it's happening in most states now. (Maybe not Wyoming or Montana...)

But you had to realize before moving to NC that that state was like that. Like every Southern state which votes "red" in the Presidential elections, there's a large number of conservatives there, and the conservatives in the South tend to be even more religious than the average conservative. So I don't think it's quite fair to move to urban NC and then complain about the rural voters giving you shitty laws: there was never any indication that this state, overall, voted more progressively. If you want a state that really is more progressive overall, you have to go someplace like New York or Massachusetts or Connecticut or Washington (state). But of course, the cost of living isn't as low in places like that as it is in the South; that's the price you pay.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#68

Post by kstrauser »

joshuaheard wrote: post #65
EdwardMSmith wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want my daughter going into a public restroom that is shared by a man, whether he is dressed as a man or not. Why? What is the underlying reason for that? Is it different if your (hypothetical?) son of the same age might have a woman (regardless of dress) in with him? I'm genuinely curious.

No, I don't want my 10 year old daughter seeing strange men urinating and defecating, or in various stages of undress in a public restroom. But, if the issue is whether we should have separate bathrooms for the genders, let's have that conversation instead of forcing it on society in the guise of discrimination.

Consider this law means your daughter has to share the bathroom with female-to-male people, including those who look like lumberjacks. Would she be more shocked by seeing a woman-appearing person in the bathroom (assuming they're not showing each other their private bits) than a man-appearing person?

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#69

Post by stblack »

gist wrote: post #35
stblack wrote: post #8

This is the first time I have ever read news that reflects PayPal in a positive light. Never thought I would ever write these words: way to go, PayPal!

I view it as dangerous actually. That is corporations with money, power and lawyers determining and overriding voters in yet another way. Doesn't matter how you see this particular issue. The next time it could go in another direction. [1] [1] Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Are they overriding voters, or are they overriding legislators? There's a difference.

North Carolina has lots of issues. So the legislators pass a law like this instead of dealing with something else. What can you do?

Paypal has options. The sad thing is, many people in minority populations of North Carolina, don't have options.

Re: PayPal Withdraws Plan for Charlotte Expansion

#70

Post by bmm6o »

gist wrote: post #41
oliwarner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overriding? They're not writing the law here, they're going where the best laws are (or where the worst aren't). NC gets to keep its shitty laws, PayPal just won't be part of it. What's your alternative here?

No this is a bit different. They are publicly announcing it in a way that says "we don't approve and here is your punishment for taking this route". Not to mention what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs as well as the other economic impact of the decision? All to citizens who might not have had a say in choosing this outcome? I won't even get into the impact on stockholders who…

> Not to mention what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs

This is a strange argument to make. By even deciding to open the facility in NC in the first place, PayPal decided against 49 other states - do those people have a claim to these hypothetical jobs? Are they forever committed once the location of these future jobs is announced?

Post reply on HN