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

Stripe bans Trump campaign

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#951

Post by prepend »

jf22 wrote: post #921
prepend wrote: post #910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of Facebook and Google, their founders have voting majority shares and literally control the companies. It’s not a secret cabal of left-leaning owners, it is a publicly known set of left-leaning tech owners. I’m not saying they act evilly, but Facebook is literally controlled by one person who cannot be outvoted by every other owner. And Google is controlled by two as well [0]. [0] https://fortune.com/201…

Ok, that doesn't mean there is a cabal of party operatives and big tech working together...

I agree, that’s why I said “ It’s not a secret cabal of left-leaning owners, it is a publicly known set of left-leaning tech owners.”

Of course the key characteristic of secret cabals is that they are secret.

While I know of no evidence for secret cabals of big tech people, having individual capable of making unaccountable decisions is a different bad thing than secret cabals.

And I responding to someone saying these were big organizations with lots of decision makers. And that’s false for Facebook and google, since they have power concentrated.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#952

Post by rat87 »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #441
imperio59 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy this argument as the law currently stands, but this is also such a moral double standard (Colorado bakery for instance). Also, how far do we go with this reasoning? Stripe and PayPal refuse service so they're supposed to "Go build their own" (it costs billions to create a new service like stripe or PayPal that can compare). AWS shut you down? Build your own data center... (Again, costs millions or billions). Wh…

Actually I think you might have the Colorado case misrepresented here. The baker was ruled in favor due to objecting based on his religious beliefs. Part of this was that he was okay with baking a cake for the gay couple but NOT one that had certain messaging that would violate his faith. [1] If the baker had altogether refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, it would have been discrimination on a protected class.…

This is inaccurate

The baker discriminated against the couple but the supreme court punted on ruling on the laws and just said the goverment hadn't acted correctly in that case so threw it out. The law is still on record and baker has to abide by it and stop discriminating against gay couples unless the court someday rules otherwise

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#953

Post by rat87 »

imperio59 wrote: post #565
dragonwriter wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The baker was ruled in favor due to objecting based on his religious beliefs. No, he was ruled in favor of because the US Supreme Court found anti-religious animus in the enforcement process leading to the State ruling against him. > Part of this was that he was okay with baking a cake for the gay couple but NOT one that had certain messaging that would violate his faith. No, it wasn't. The decision specifically no…

Not to mention they are intentionally sending more LGBTQ customers his way to have him politely say no and refer them to another business, just so they can sue him again, and again, and again... https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/masterpiece-cakeshop...

Absolutely nothing wrong with that

That's how you enforce civil rights laws

It's no different then trying to rent an apartment from a racist to make a case

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#954

Post by rat87 »

blPanx wrote: post #845
darkwizard42 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I think you might have the Colorado case misrepresented here. The baker was ruled in favor due to objecting based on his religious beliefs. Part of this was that he was okay with baking a cake for the gay couple but NOT one that had certain messaging that would violate his faith. [1] If the baker had altogether refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, it would have been discrimination on a protected class.…

Indeed he offered the couple any other cake than a custom wedding cake with two men figures on top . His custom cakes are small works of art. If he'd be forced to create one against his beliefs, why not force a far left painter to paint a favorable portrait of Trump? And indeed this situation has little to do with Silicon Valley corporations offering generic services to millions of people. They are like supermarkets,…

His cakes are food

This seems like a giant loophole to negate anti-discrimination laws.

Are subway "sandwich artists" able to discriminate in their art?

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#955

Post by rat87 »

nemo44x wrote: post #898
blPanx wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed he offered the couple any other cake than a custom wedding cake with two men figures on top . His custom cakes are small works of art. If he'd be forced to create one against his beliefs, why not force a far left painter to paint a favorable portrait of Trump? And indeed this situation has little to do with Silicon Valley corporations offering generic services to millions of people. They are like supermarkets,…

I think that’s the issue people mix up. He isn’t refusing to do business with anyone because of who they are. He’s refusing to create certain expressions which I should think he has every right to do. I would expect a Christian cake maker would not agree to accept my money to design a cake that worships satan for example. Likewise I wouldn’t expect a satanic cake maker to make a cake celebrating Jesus. Would it be ri…

No he is refusing to make a cake for a gay couple

If he refused to provide groom&groom wedding toppers I'd fully support him but this is food not speech

Likewise I wouldn't expect him to write messages or make decorations he disagreed with

But in this case it's a simple case of discrimination

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#956

Post by rorykoehler »

yurielt wrote: post #872
rorykoehler wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protected class should. be reserved to things you cannot change. People don't choose to be black, gay, trans etc. They choose their political affiliation and even their religion.

But religion usually isn’t something you choose statistically speaking please inform yourself instead of promoting hate against religions

I wasn’t necessarily advocating for that but more to illustrate a hierarchy. I understand it came across differently though.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#957

Post by rat87 »

yurielt wrote: post #867
Jochim wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If society has decided that your political campaign is so toxic that no one wants to do business with you, should private entities be forced to deal with you if you are not a protected class? Parler being booted is society's reaction to a movement that has been getting more extreme for the last 5 years. I'll note the irony that many of the people complaining about companies refusing to deal with Parler are the same p…

There is a clear difference between people clearly going to the same bakery over and over to harass and old guy, and being unable to actually do politics because of the technocrats and their cronies don’t be dishonest and don’t assume things for which you do not have proof. Not only that but if society decides that the Earth is flat would you agree with any decisions stemming from that, assuming there is a thing such…

They're enforcing Civil right violations via lawsuit. It's no different then trying to rent from a racist landlord

Speaking of landlords who discriminate, Trump has never done anything to deserve a shred of respect. Long before day one. If anything they're saving gullible people from sending money to a conman

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#958

Post by nailer »

leokennis wrote: post #893
nailer wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump called for a March on the Capitol building. This is a very common thing for politicians to do. This does not constitute inciting violence.

Please. The "nod nod wink wink" is extremely obvious in any Trump speech.

[flagged]

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#959

Post by staunch »

grzm wrote: post #341
staunch wrote: post #171

@dang there is some clearly abusive use of flagging to silence opposing views in this thread. A sign of just how intolerant so many people have become. Please do something about it, like removing flag permissions from these users or making flagged comments remain visible. This behavior is toxic.

The best way to contact the mods is via the Contact link in the footer.

I'd rather it be an "open letter" in this case. No action was taken to un-silence abusively flagged threads, as far as I can see. This is as close to HN moderation "transparency" as we get.

Re: Stripe bans Trump campaign

#960

Post by cambalache »

vharuck wrote: post #942
cambalache wrote: post #935

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the same dynamics that has happened through history when one group is qualified as "untouchable" and any association with them, even if purely commercial, will bring retaliation.

We have to distinguish between those who are untouchable because of circumstances beyond their control (lineage, birthplace, disabilities) and those who are pariahs because of their behavior (criminals, militant anarchists, that mean old guy who sits on his porch with a shotgun). I have sympathy for the former, but not the latter. While it would be kind to reach out to the latter group and help them mesh with society…

> We have to distinguish between...

No, we dont have to distinguish that. Your weak premise would justify the discrimination of atheists, anarchists, monarchists, pentecostals,marxists, epicureans... among thousands of other groups.

I dont really understand why it is so complicated.

At individual and private level I can decide who will I spend my time with, who I will invite to my place, go to the beach etc, with no coercion and I expect everybody else to have that right too.

At public level I have the expectation to serve all the people the same (ceteris paribus) unless I am forced by current legislation to not do so (like selling alcohol to a minor).

I would not extend that prohibition to a person who can request my services legally , if the person is going to pay and if he is going to behave like any other customer.

If I manage a 7/11 I would not create an ideological purity test to figure out if I will sell you gas or a soda and I think society will be way better if everybody does that too.

Post reply on HN