Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Sure but this whole “being principled” thing is so weird when people focus exclusively on the laws.

Sure they can do this without anyone getting sued, but they can still face consequences for doing it (like people not going to see the Rockettes).

People like the OP seem to forget that legality is not the ultimate moral code.



Being compelled by the state to do something you don't want to do (e.g. provide a service to someone) is what they are objecting to in principle I think, and they see THAT as a potential slippery slope more so than the opposite issue (being unable to pay for services due to societal freeze out).


Again, I’m not arguing laws in this branch of the thread.

I’m just saying people who lean on “the law is this, they are in the right” ignore a major part of society and commerce to their own detriment.


I don't think that's what he's saying so much as the law reflects the principle I outline and they likely admire: state should in general not compel individuals (or businesses) to do things they don't want to do.

The idea that the law is just a bunch of words and your job is to advocate for them to change if it improves your life in any way is not a great guiding principle.


>state should in general not compel individuals (or businesses) to do things they don't want to do.

This is a very easy thing to say as a member of majority groups, but American (and South African and European, and...) history has shown that this attitude leads to some of the most grotesque outcomes in history.

And where does it end? Should subsidies and variable tax rates be illegal (hope you're not a member of a church or a supporter of the arts!)? Those are control mechanisms the government uses to influence behaviors.

Should federal employment be illegal? I don't think most Soldiers would risk their lives if not for the paycheck/benefits.

Is the problem only with mandates?


But treating the law as ironclad and immutable to the detriment of practical outcomes is just as bad. Therein lies the tension of civilization that must be kept in balance.


"Being compelled by the state to do something you don't want to do (e.g. provide a service to someone) is what they are objecting to"

That's not what happened though. They sold admission to a person and then rejected it because that person works for a firm that has an open case against another company that they're conglomerated with.

It smells like retaliation to me, but I guess it will come down to what the courts decide.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: