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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#941

Post by masklinn »

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'd rephrase that as "in favor of the rule of law".

The ACLU will fight against laws it considers unjust, illegitimate and liberticide. It has under pretty much every administration.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#942

Post by morgante »

groovy2shoes wrote: post #924
baconner wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't mean to imply that you're wrong (afaik, you're actually correct here), but I do want to point out that the interpretation and legal enforcement of the constitution is supposed to be done by the Supreme Court (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the entire judiciary branch). I'm not sure to what extent the SC can pass judgments / make rulings without being prompted by a lawsuit, though at the very least it seems…

> I'm not sure to what extent the SC can pass judgments / make rulings without being prompted by a lawsuit, though at the very least it seems to me that the ACLU at least keeps the important stuff on their radar ;)

They can't at all. Ours is an adversarial legal system and therefore the rule of law depends on dogged opposition willing to make challenges to unjust laws. That's why the ACLU is so critically important.

It's also one of the big problems with secret laws and warrantless surveillance: if you don't know your rights are being violated, how do you prove a violation occurred (which is a requirement to be granted standing in court)?

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#943

Post by efdee »

gregw134 wrote: post #727
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.

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…

> the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience

Honest question: which right would that be? I've never heard about that before.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#944

Post by efdee »

TheOsiris wrote: post #721
Miner49er wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line between free speech and discrimination was drawn long ago. Would you also have people deny service to Black Americans like we did before the Civil Rights movement?

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

Assuming the neo-nazis are there just to eat and not to stir up a fight, I would say yes. But I'm not sure it's legal to walk around in Nazi uniforms.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#946

Post by timr »

nvahalik wrote: post #875
nickparker wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think neither PG's tweets nor this ACLU post are actually against the broad ideas of conservatism. If you believe in individual freedom, small government, low taxes, and heavy use of market solutions, I haven't seen anything from YC that runs against those ideas. The issues YC seems to oppose are nativism/xenophobia and authoritarianism. Opposition to the former is a wholly rational decision to preserve YC's access…

> Lastly, there exists a wing of American conservatism which is significantly more racist, sexist, and homophobic than the national average. I think you're right, that group would not feel welcome at YC nor should they. Their exclusion is based on their personal views, which they are capable of changing. Their inclusion would make others feel excluded on the basis of immutable traits, which is far worse in my opinion…

"I'm not sure which 'wing' of conservatism you are speaking of but I'm neither 'alt-right' but my views are likely to be labeled as something like 'homophobic'....If the left is going to continue to preach 'inclusivity' and 'diversity' then it would behoove them to actually ensure that there are those things rather than limited everyone to a particular worldview that makes people feel comfortable."

The leader of YC is a gay man. A number of YC founders are also gay.

I bring this up not because it comes up a lot, but because you seem to view homophobia as an "opinion" that should be respected by gay people as "inclusive" and "diverse". You can certainly believe that, but you're not likely to get anywhere with it.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#947

Post by village-idiot »

jMyles wrote: post #693
village-idiot wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like castigating someone who volunteers at a soup kitchen for not volunteering at every soup kitchen.

It's more like, in a world with exactly eight soup kitchens, the "soup kitchen support union" specifically excluding one from its support network and issuing a statement that, despite its soup having similar origins and ingredients, doesn't qualify as soup in to today's palette unless consumed collectively by all of society.

You're stretching the metaphor beyond its breaking point. There's no limit on the number of civil rights organizations out there; the ACLU does not have any exclusive right to sue over certain issues or coordinate other groups, it's just particularly old, effective, and respected.

If you're particularly worried about the 2nd amendment there are organizations (extremely powerful and effective organizations at that) to sue on your behalf.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#948

Post by Shivetya »

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.

I am of the opinion that since these services are not limited in number that society can be more corrective by simply not patronizing providers who don't uphold its values.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#949

Post by RileyKyeden »

gepoch wrote: post #204
spacemanmatt wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been using mine for decades and they're truly excellent. 10/10, would recommend. I really hope they continue to kick out more good products.

I got some when I launched, but I haven't really found a use for them. Sad to see so many products sharing the fate of the Apple watch.

Most people's civil liberties work so smoothly they don't even notice.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#950

Post by richmarr »

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.

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

The "because of their religion" part is demonstrably nonsense.

People don't foster anti-gay feelings because of their religion, they trawl archaic text to justify anti-gay feelings that already exist.

It takes 30 seconds and a copy of Leviticus to disprove. Where's the conservative rage about tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), or oysters (Leviticus 11:10)?

Post reply on HN