this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
458 points (94.0% liked)

News

23300 readers
3554 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do.

That's not going to work. There are many kinds of people, and some of the things they want to do or refuse to do are disruptive or dangerous.

That guy doesn't want to take care of his home projects, and now toxic smoke is blowing into his neighbors houses. Are you going to just say "well he doesn't want to deal with that, so the law can't make him"? I hope not because that creates a shitty world for everyone.

So maybe you meant something different and more limited than what you wrote?

[–] MJKee9@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think the implication in all personal freedom discussions is: freedom so long as it doesn't unnecessarily harm others. You may have freedom of speech in America, but that doesn't protect the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but that brings us right back to "does refusing service to someone harm them?"

[–] MJKee9@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sure it does. Notice i said unreasonable harm. There is a clear distinction between refusing to take someone's wedding photo and providing someone with life saving care.

There are US Court cases that deal with this distinction.

Edit: i originally said unnecessarily as opposed to unreasonably... But the point still stands

[–] Nacktmull@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So maybe you meant something different and more limited than what you wrote?

No, just more limited than your interpretation. I never meant to imply that "Nobody should be forced by law to do things they don´t want to do." should cancel out all of people's personal responsibilities. Nobody who offers a service is responsible to offer that service to everyone imo. Imagine a gay person working in any field, could be forced by law, to provide their service to neo-nazis and you might see how pointless your approach is in practice.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Glad we agree that we don't want an unbounded freedom from responsibility.

But I mean if you don't force people to serve the entire public you risk some presumably unwanted consequences. Should a whole grocery chain be able to say no blacks? What if it's the only one in the town? Should realtors be allowed to refuse to sell houses to non whites? What if that means all the black people get forced into one part of town, and coincidentally that part has shitty services and other unwanted traits?

Is the rule "as long as there's alternatives it's ok"? Separate but equal was already decided to be unequal.

On the other hand, I do want to be able to refuse service to Nazis. Maybe the key is naziism is wholly something you choose. But I also don't want people to be able to refuse service to, like, union members.

There's no universal "anti social behavior" metric, unfortunately, I don't think.

[–] Nacktmull@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

But I mean if you don’t force people to serve the entire public you risk some presumably unwanted consequences. Should a whole grocery chain be able to say no blacks? What if it’s the only one in the town? Should realtors be allowed to refuse to sell houses to non whites? What if that means all the black people get forced into one part of town, and coincidentally that part has shitty services and other unwanted traits?

Those are examples of public, structural discrimination, which imo is the kind of discrimination that is manageable with laws pretty well. However there is also the kind of individual, private discrimination that can not really be solved by the law. I think it absolutely should be illegal for a company to openly discriminate a group, let's say by putting up a "No XY" sign and officially not serving XY. However, I also see the limits of how much such laws can do in practice. For example despite such a law being in place, a company could easily still not serve XY -just inofficially- and simply claim a full schedule whenever XY people show up/call, without the law being able to do anything about it. That is why I think laws are not enough and in the end a real social change is necessary to end these types of unjust discrimination.

Is the rule “as long as there’s alternatives it’s ok”? Separate but equal was already decided to be unequal.

Discrimination based on inherent traits is unjust af and therefore can never be "okay".

On the other hand, I do want to be able to refuse service to Nazis.

I feel the same

Maybe the key is naziism is wholly something you choose. But I also don’t want people to be able to refuse service to, like, union members.

It's not a simple topic, right? On one hand, I would want it to be legal to put up a "we don serve Nazis" sign, on the other hand, one could argue that someone who was born into a Nazi family and was constantly spoon fed the ideology from the beginning, never really had a chance to not become a Nazi.

There’s no universal “anti social behavior” metric, unfortunately, I don’t think.

In the end I think only education that leads to the understanding that people who are different from you are not your enemies, can help the problem.