I'm having a really hard time trying to understand the level of entitlement that takes to believe that you can have a service from a private for-profit business without paying for it, like Facebook, YouTube, etc. and they are forced to give it to you without any say on it, no matter what, even if it's not advertiser friendly and ruins their business.
It's the same concept as requiring companies not to discriminate in providing accommodations to members of protected classes, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964. It's just a different class. The debate is about which classes it should be legal to discriminate against.
"Acting like a moron" is entirely subjective. You will inevitably find a way to apply it to anyone you disagree with. This justification would work just as well for other protected classes; it just so happens they've been set up to include your in-groups and not your out-groups.
What…? Are you claiming that membership in the existing protected classes is subjective?
It doesn’t matter that the definition of inappropriate behavior or speech is subjective. Each party will determine for themselves what they think is reasonable. As long as they aren’t infringing on any other rights or breaking other laws in the process, this is totally fine.
I can reasonably say that calling a cake shop whom you know for a fact will not bake you a cake, not because you actually want a cake but instead for the purpose of getting them in legal trouble from the official inquisition, is "acting like a moron".
And yet I had to very very carefully word that for the sake of my own conscience because I know full well that HN will crucify me regardless on the theory that merely mentioning this topic amounts to homophobia.
If a shop owner tells a gay customer "I don't believe you about actually wanting [the product / service]", how do we know if the shop owner has legitimate reason to think this or just doesn't like gay people?
I'm not a legal expert, but I'm guessing that there would be need to be clear evidence of harassment from the customer (or something of that sort) in order for the shop owner to be able to refuse service.
Otherwise, any asshole could get around discrimination laws by simply claiming they don't think customer the actually wants the product. That would be a terrible situation.
> It doesn’t matter that the definition of inappropriate behavior or speech is subjective. Each party will determine for themselves what they think is reasonable. As long as they aren’t infringing on any other rights or breaking other laws in the process, this is totally fine.
> The debate is about which classes it should be legal to discriminate against
I'm not so sure it is. You're allowed to refuse service to a black person, for instance—you just can't do it because they're black. But this law says you can't ban a politician at all, not merely because they're a politician. This law would be like saying you can't refuse service to a black person for any reason.
