undefined | Better HN

0 pointstootie6y ago0 comments

There's ample for why it's illegal to discriminate against classes of people. Imagine business in the 20s with signs saying "Irish need not apply" or "No dogs or Jews". The recent case with the baker was extending the protection of human rights to gay couples.

Any "conservative" content that has been kicked off of platforms like YouTube has been specifically targeted not for political reasons but because they were spreading hate speech and/or dangerous disinformation. Things like racism, sexism, religious intolerance, specific accusations (ie Joe Scarborough is a murderer) or dangerous disinformation (ie 5G causes Coronavirus) are not intrinsic to any group of people. There's still plenty of content around mainstream conservatism that can be viewed freely.

I think any attempt to argue a slippery slope isn't valid. People aren't computers and just because you can't apply a mathematically rigorous distinction between these kinds of speech doesn't mean that a reasonable person can't easily distinguish them.

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

defen6y ago· 3 in thread

> The recent case with the baker was extending the protection of human rights to gay couples.

He offered to sell them a pre-made cake (in compliance with non-discrimination laws). The question was whether he could be compelled to perform an act of speech (custom-making a cake) that violated his sincerely-held religious beliefs.

mullingitover6y ago

It was a work for hire service that he refused, the speech argument is pretty flimsy (to me at least). To me it's like trying to say that your hedge trimming service is a creative act, and thus speech, so your landscaping company can deny service to a same-sex couple. I guess reasonable people can disagree, but we wouldn't be as conflicted it it was an interracial couple that he was denying services to. I doubt history will be kind to that SC decision.

damon_c6y ago

Hedge trimming can be done by anyone with a hedge trimming machine. This baker made beautiful unique artistic cakes that were a product of his own life and experiences and sensibilities. Also, a wedding cake specifically celebrates a matrimony whose existence the baker would deny. Any hedge trimming service that satisfied those qualifications would indeed possibly be subject to the same controversy.

Regardless of the context of this case, it's odd that the state can now seemingly force someone to engage their creativity and artistic sensibility for any reason. It is now federal judicial precedence that he must lawfully create a satisfyingly beautiful cake for anyone who= asks. What if it's not beautiful enough? Is that punishable by law? Who judges the beauty?

Probably the baker should have just made a half assed cake...

1 more reply

defen6y ago

In general, trimmed hedges don't inherently convey a meaningful message, but if you asked someone to trim the hedges into a message that violated your sincerely-held religious beliefs then I think the same principle would apply.

> we wouldn't be as conflicted it it was an interracial couple that he was denying services to

I don't believe you would be able to make a "sincere religious conviction" argument against it - I'm not aware of any mainstream religions that prohibit interracial marriage as part of their doctrine (as opposed to an epiphenomenon of the cultural practices of the people who make up the group).

1 more reply

centimeter6y ago

> The recent case with the baker was extending the protection of human rights to gay couples.

So is it a "human right" to use a business's services even if they don't want you to, or not? Be consistent. If it is, it's a human right violation to politically deplatform people.

> has been specifically targeted not for political reasons

This is obvious bullshit to anyone who follows youtube/twitter/facebook censorship drama. Tons of people have been deplatformed without having e.g. harassed anyone.

> they were spreading hate speech

Is this supposed to impress us? That something someone said falls under this recently-made-up category that coincidentally includes a bunch of factual rightist talking points?

> There's still plenty of content around mainstream conservatism

I'm sure you feel that way, but conservatives certainly don't agree with you.

> I think any attempt to argue a slippery slope isn't valid

There's not a slippery slope argument here - YouTube, Twitter, and others have deleted content that many conservatives think is obviously fine and within the bounds of civil discourse.

Here are two related things that came up in my feed literally today:

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/5/26/21270290/you...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1201181

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

defen6y ago· 3 in thread

> The recent case with the baker was extending the protection of human rights to gay couples.

mullingitover6y ago

damon_c6y ago

Probably the baker should have just made a half assed cake...

1 more reply

defen6y ago

> we wouldn't be as conflicted it it was an interracial couple that he was denying services to

1 more reply

centimeter6y ago

> The recent case with the baker was extending the protection of human rights to gay couples.

So is it a "human right" to use a business's services even if they don't want you to, or not? Be consistent. If it is, it's a human right violation to politically deplatform people.

> has been specifically targeted not for political reasons

This is obvious bullshit to anyone who follows youtube/twitter/facebook censorship drama. Tons of people have been deplatformed without having e.g. harassed anyone.

> they were spreading hate speech

Is this supposed to impress us? That something someone said falls under this recently-made-up category that coincidentally includes a bunch of factual rightist talking points?

> There's still plenty of content around mainstream conservatism

I'm sure you feel that way, but conservatives certainly don't agree with you.

> I think any attempt to argue a slippery slope isn't valid

There's not a slippery slope argument here - YouTube, Twitter, and others have deleted content that many conservatives think is obviously fine and within the bounds of civil discourse.

Here are two related things that came up in my feed literally today:

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/5/26/21270290/you...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1201181

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse