[jobeirne]

> But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy.

Um, think you've got this backwards. Private entities shouldn't have to take on anyone they don't want as customers (for whatever reason - do you have to justify who you do or don't want in your livingroom?), but publicly-funded institutions shouldn't be able to deny service on political grounds.

[rattray]

That is true – businesses are legally allowed to refuse service to anyone (apart from protected classes like race or political affiliation, but that probably does not apply here). It's an important right, and probably many businesses would be more profitable and happy if they exercised that right more often.

It's still politically dangerous, and would earn a company a lot of enemies and mistrust (as well as some allies, though they may be the type to just ask for more, as others on this post have mentioned).

[munificent]

> It's still politically dangerous, and would earn a company a lot of enemies and mistrust

Yes, doing the right thing often is dangerous and earns you hatred from other people doing bad things who love the freedom of hiding amongst a herd of other equally guilty people.

The reason we have so much respect for people who take stand and do what they believe is right is because doing so is so hard. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

[rattray]

If you're going to risk your business's livelihood to bravely take a stand, it should be in a situation where you can win. Where your bold action will be the turning point towards victory of righteousness. And where the magnitude of that victory is commensurate with the risk of your business's failure.

Denying the use of racially biased facial recognition software is a much clearer example where the risks are lower and the impact much, much greater.

It's much less clear that a source code repository is the fulcrum that enables 40 children to be jammed into a room without hygiene. Maybe if you worked for a critical supplier for ICE you could have an impact (which I would much encourage).

[munificent]

> If you're going to risk your business's livelihood to bravely take a stand, it should be in a situation where you can win.

I fundamentally disagree with this. Your argument is akin to stating that there should never be any casualties in a war. There is no way to effectively win a war without sometimes sending some troops into situations where you know they will die.

Compared to soldiers who knowingly lay down their lives in losing battles to help win the war, choosing a moral course of action that merely ends a company seems like a pretty cheap sacrifice.

[rattray]

Within this analogy, I was saying you shouldn't start a war you can't win. It's typical for winners to sustain casualties.

[49531]

I think a better way to look at it is that workers should be able to protest working on a machine they find morally wrong. The world might be a better place if people directing resources were required to stop and think "Are the workers going to willingly do this?" before making decisions.

[mc32]

What if developers find it morally wrong to automate away jobs? Do they get a say?

Is it within their moral rights for backhoe operators demand manual ditch digging too because that will benefit their friends who lost jobs to powered equipment?

[robbrown451]

In that case they probably should quit and join a different company. I mean, if they don't agree with the core function of their job, why are they working there?

Regardless, if enough people think it is wrong that the company goes out of business, so be it. I don't think that is likely, but ok. Automation is going to continue to happen no matter what.

[archagon]

To some extent, yes. The economy exists for the benefit of humanity and not the other way around.

The question is: does the automation help us build things that were impossible before, or does it exist for the sole purpose of cutting jobs and funneling more money to the executives?

[takeda]

IMO what actually needs to be done is tax on automation that would directly fund universal income. That would actually help humanity.

[diegoperini]

That kills the whole purpose of automation. Automation is preferable because it is supposed to be cheaper while providing equal benefits as traditional production of goods and services.

My personal choice here would be a tax for practices that are provably automatable but not yet automated. The result is the same, we are funding a UBI but now businesses are also incentivized for innovation to escape from the tax. I'm probably missing hundreds of reasonable concerns with my simplistic view point though.

[robbrown451]

How exactly are you going to measure what is automation? Even something as basic as making a function rather than copy-pasting code is automation.Where do you draw the line? Who is going to measure this?

[mc32]

Let’s say we’ll go that far and companies accept that...

Does everyone refuse to work for Komatsu, John Deere, Liebherr, etc? Is that even possible?

[jancsika]

> Is it within their moral rights for backhoe operators demand manual ditch digging too because that will benefit their friends who lost jobs to powered equipment?

This seems like an unfruitful digression.

OP already agreed that the actions of ICE are immoral and that this action is within the moral rights of the workers.

The main question is about efficacy. That isn't elucidated by introducing a thought experiment where you believe the moral rights of developers are not as clear cut.

[mc32]

For most Americans and, I’d guess most citizens of most countries, enforcing immigration laws isn’t a big debate and enforcement is routine and companies don’t question enforcement by their government.

So the question is can employees who have diverging moralities have direct input on what a company considers moral and immoral outside the common take of the population at large?

[jancsika]

> For most Americans and, I’d guess most citizens of most countries, enforcing immigration laws isn’t a big debate and enforcement is routine and companies don’t question enforcement by their government.

At least for Americans you are wrong on all three counts, and that may be where the confusion is coming.

The workers (and as I already stated, the OP) all agree that there are actions done by ICE that are not only unethical but morally reprehensible. One of the (only) two major parties officially agrees as do a large portion of their constituents.

So your question about views "outside the common take" is interesting but not relevant to this discussion.

[ElFitz]

Can they? It seems so, yes.

Should they? Well, one hardly can force someone to work for one's self nowadays.

Companies aren't democracies. Why should "the population at large"'s opinion matter in anyway? Most people don't even know Github exists, let alone what it's for.

[rattray]

Yes, I'm glad that GitHub workers are allowed to protest this. It is heartening.

That doesn't change the fact that I'm personally disappointed that they're executing that privilege on this particular issue.

[takeda]

"I'm happy that people are allowed to protest, but I don't think they should protest for causes that I don't agree with"

"I think ICE needs reforms, but I don't believe a pressure should be put on them to impose changes"

Makes me wonder if you truly support people protesting or even agree that ICE is doing anything wrong.

[rattray]

This just seems like a weird, ineffective way to put pressure on ICE to stop detaining people excessively, inhumanely, or lethally.

Anger and outrage are valuable, and it's important that we channel them in the right directions.

[chipotle_coyote]

This just seems like a weird, ineffective way to put pressure on ICE to stop detaining people excessively, inhumanely, or lethally.

It might very well be, and it's worth debating how much giving business support to an organization whose policies you (possibly vehemently) disagree with is a kind of implicit support of those policies. But, it's also worth asking: if protest by workers to put pressure on their employees to stop giving business support to organizations whose policies they vehemently disagree with is "disappointing," what kind of protest isn't?

It seems to me that when we're talking about corporations, who you do and don't sign contracts with -- who you buy from, who you sell to, and what charities you support -- is far and away the strongest signal you can send. If you're sending a signal of support to Black Lives Matter protests, it's nice if you send out a few tweets and update your home page, but it's better if you donate money, services, and/or employee time. And the group you donate those things to is going to send a signal: donating to Colin Kaepernick's "Know Your Rights Camp" is in some sense a more specific, stronger message than donating to the ACLU.

So it certainly seems reasonable that asking the corporations you work for (and perhaps work with) to put their money where their PR is in terms of who they do business with also sends a message. No, it's probably not in and of itself going to put much pressure on ICE, but it is a statement of values.

[cpeterso]

These GitHub employees' demands are keeping ICE in headlines in newspapers like the LA Times. That's one effective channel for pressuring ICE.

[craftyguy]

> Anger and outrage are valuable, and it's important that we channel them in the right directions.

It's important to channel them in all directions that could have impact. You never know for sure which 'direction' matters to the group you are trying to impart change on.

[pinkfoot]

Out of curiosity, how does any government detain anyone without - at least as a final resort - lethal force?

[I bet I'll get more downvotes than answers].

[jacobr1]

Another thing to consider is culpability.

Even if there is no direct impact (such as another supplier stepping in) an individual choosing to avoid directly, supporting an organization they cannot morally abide has personal moral value. Probably not in a utilitarian sense, but that isn't the only basis for moral action in humans - see the trolly-problem for the canonical example.

[ByteJockey]

> I think ICE needs reforms, but I don't believe a pressure should be put on them to impose changes

I'm in one of those weird moods where I want to see if I can argue something that sounds weird at first. If that's not your thing just ignore this post.

Putting pressure on ICE isn't going to change anything. Institutions cannot be trusted to reform themselves. In fact, it's going to be worse than doing nothing. The people involved will feel like they have "done their part" and will do fewer useful things in the future than they would have otherwise, mostly because they wasted their time on this thing.

Pressure has to be put on congress to reform ICE. Anything that distracts from that, or makes people feel a sense of accomplishment without furthering that goal is worse than useless.

[chiefalchemist]

ICE doesn't make the law. Yes, there have been actions worthy of investigation. But blaming ICE for doing its job? Is it's ICE's fault there are 12 million undocumented immigrants? That was no accident.

[uhoh-itsmaciek]

What sort of issue do you feel that privilege should be reserved for?

[ianleeclark]

Pretty disappointing. Workers protesting those people who can't stop losing thousands of children at a time.

[cameronfraser]

How would businesses be more profitable if they exercised the right to refuse service more? You also realize the people who exercise this right the most do it for reasons you likely don't agree with.

[rattray]

Simple: some customers are more expensive to serve than others.

Maybe they use a lot of a free service you provide that costs you money. Maybe they require too much customer support. Maybe they return most of the products they buy from you. I've looked at a few datasets where profitability by customer varied pretty widely, including many that were clearly in the red. Most companies just don't break out their costs by customer enough to see it.

[claudeganon]

Spot on. I’ve worked for companies that have “fired” customers for being more trouble than they’re worth. Generally, it was because of unreasonable support or product demands (e.g. “we need this boutique feature added now,” filing countless tickets for outstanding issues we were working on and had communicated as much to them, etc).

If more companies were forced to pause and consider whether taking on certain customers would cause their workers to revolt, we’d all be better off.

[tssva]

In the US at least political affiliation is not usually a protected class.

[mikedilger]

Except in Washington D.C.

[jasonmp85]

Seconded. I'm not sure whether the person upthread was earnestly posting that, or surreptitiously doing so as a stalking horse for something else.

Either way: not a protected class, and it should stay that way.

[brabel]

I am strongly against a private business being able to refuse service to a person/organization on political grounds, even when the "victim" may seem to be performing evil actions, as long as it is not breaking any laws. One should not discriminate on the basis of race, political orientation, gender, origin or religion. Refusing service is clearly a form of discrimination. When you aim that towards your own Government, it may look like a heroic action to your supporters, but to those who are not, you're performing discrimination on the grounds of political affiliation against an organization that is following, as it is obliged to, the law of the Land. If you think the ICE is doing terrible things, you should lob the Government to take action and bring them to justice, but given the Government is, as I understand it, actually mandating such terrible things, you're aiming your fury at the wrong place. You should be protesting against the Government who is mandating these terrible things.

Imagine for a moment that things change completely, and the ICE starts refusing to follow the orders of the Government - but now the Government is leaning towards the far-left, and wants the ICE to open borders to all. The ICE would no doubt have a lot of supporters, but disobeying the Government in such case would ALSO be wrong because in a democracy, the Government represents the people - by not following the orders of the Government, you're basically advancing anarchy. In both cases, the correct attitude is to fight for a Government change. It's not democratic for a Government organization to take its own stance on a topic despite the Government's policies.

[akiselev]

ICE is not a person. ICE does not have a "race, political orientation, gender, origin or religion." It is a social construct and a very recent one at that.

Denying service to ICE the organization isn't even remotely comparable to denying service to actual human beings.

[prepend]

“Creed” [0] is a protected class and it will be interesting to see a legal determination if this is discrimination based on the creed of the organization. Namely, carrying out its congressional mandate.

I think that social constructs could be discriminated against based on race, religion, sex, etc if it was discriminated against because its members were part of a protected class.

[0] https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8686/what-is-a-creed...

[thu2111]

Religion isn't a person either. That's a social construct. And I keep reading people claiming gender is a social construct too, so I guess discriminating against people on those grounds is fine then.

Denying service to ICE the organization isn't even remotely comparable to denying service to actual human beings.

Is ICE staffed entirely by robots? How is it not denying service to actual human beings?

[ric2b]

You can't see the difference between a christian individual and a church?

[kelnos]

Your argument is full of false equivalencies.

A government agency cannot be a victim of discrimination, at least not in any way that matters. It is not a person, and does not have rights.

A government agency refusing to follow its orders is in no way parallel or analogous to a private company refusing to serve a particular customer. In the first case it's an illegal act, where the result will be the firing/jailing of the offenders (with the removal of their access that enables them to disobey), while in the second case it's just a normal, legal, expected outcome of business sometimes.

> the correct attitude is to fight for a Government change

Private entities refusing to do business with certain parts of the government is an aspect of fighting for government change. GitHub refusing to do business with ICE is a collective way for GH's employees and executives to lobby the government for change.

[mijamo]

This is not an absolute truth, and many countries would disagree with your interpretation of discrimination.

For instance in France regarding B2B sales:

"Constitue également une discrimination toute distinction opérée entre les personnes morales sur le fondement de l'origine, du sexe, de la situation de famille, de la grossesse, de l'apparence physique, de la particulière vulnérabilité résultant de la situation économique, apparente ou connue de son auteur, du patronyme, du lieu de résidence, de l'état de santé, de la perte d'autonomie, du handicap, des caractéristiques génétiques, des mœurs, de l'orientation sexuelle, de l'identité de genre, de l'âge, des opinions politiques, des activités syndicales, de la capacité à s'exprimer dans une langue autre que le français, de l'appartenance ou de la non-appartenance, vraie ou supposée, à une ethnie, une Nation, une prétendue race ou une religion déterminée des membres ou de certains membres de ces personnes morales."

This clearly states that you cannot refuse to sell a product or to a company on political grounds, just like you can't refuse to sell to a Jewish association because they are Jewish, or to a Italian company because you don't trust Italians.

[gruez]

>One should not discriminate on the basis of race, political orientation, gender, origin or religion. Refusing service is clearly a form of discrimination

It looks like you're trying to imply that discriminating based on political orientation is as bad as as discriminating based on race, gender, origin or religion, but that's wrong. At least when it comes to the law, political orientation isn't a protected class. Race, gender, origin or religion are.

[belorn]

When it comes to US law, under the qualification of "most states", then political orientation is not protected. Some states however do protect it in some circumstances just like any other discrimination. Discrimination laws in the US is a mix between federal and state law.

In the EU under human rights, discriminating based on political orientation is just as bad as discriminating based on race, gender, origin or religion. Religion and political beliefs are equivalent under the rule of law.

The UN also recognize discriminating based on political orientation under their human right declaration: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status"

[afiori]

I think that there is a good midway solution to this.

For example in many countries you need to "register" political advertising[1]. One could say that it is perfectly reasonable not to help political opponents, but then it would be reasonable to declare your business as politically oriented.

Similarly to how even private universities in the US must uphold free-speech rights is they declare free-speech friendly.

This is not a complete solution, but it does not need to be all or nothing.

[1] in the Uk there was some conversation about Ryanair's showing pro-stay slogan on a plane behind a press conference during the Brexit campaing

[deogeo]

You're correct regarding the law, but I wouldn't be so quick to claim it's not as bad. Suppose a business refused to serve union activists? Environmentalists? Feminists? Suppose many large businesses did so?

[dropofwill]

An example of this in the wild from the Democratic party is https://dcccblacklist.com

[mikedilger]

I also think discrimination based on political grounds is a bad idea. In NZ political opinion is protected. Human Rights Act 1993, 21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination (1)(j) "political opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion" [An exception is made for employment of a political nature, see section 31]

I think that's a better situation than the U.S. model which essentially foments society-dividing political warfare by cancelling people from different political viewpoints. It just serves to divide your country even further.

If you disagree, answer me this: Are you okay with the fact that a racist employer can fire you for not being racist enough? Are you okay with the fact that a Christian employer can fire you for supporting LGBT rights.. (they cannot fire you for being gay, but they can fire you for supporing gays)? Are you okay with the fact that an employer can fire you for supporing BLM? If political opinion is not protected, you'd better hope your employer has the same political opinions that you do... or else you'd better stay very quiet (chilling effect).

Discrimination against an arm of the government itself (ICE) seems to me to be an advanced stage symptom of a systemic societal sickness. I have no idea how it will resolve, but I wish you all the best. Hang in there.

[Miner49er]

This goes way too far in limiting freedom IMO. It makes sense to not let people discriminate on things that are immutable (like skin color), but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice.

Just like I can decide not to let people not wearing shoes or shirts into my business, why shouldn't I be able to deny entry to a neo-Nazi? What if I'm losing black customers because I have racists regularly visiting my store?

[philwelch]

So do you think religious discrimination is acceptable?

[chipotle_coyote]

Religion is a protected class, so the question is moot under US law.

In any case, I confess I'm always a little suspicious of this method of argument. Bob says, "I will ban neo-Nazis from my forum," and people chime in with, "Well, what about banning Catholics? Vegetarians? People who admit to liking Nickelback?". Is the principle really that if we find one single case where Bob would admit "I don't think banning that group makes any sense," then Bob needs to just give up and let neo-Nazis on his forum? Personally, I don't think that's a very good principle. An argument about where we (and Bob) should draw the line is reasonable, but I'm not convinced an argument about whether lines are intrinsically evil is.

[philwelch]

I was directly addressing the notion that "It makes sense to not let people discriminate on things that are immutable (like skin color), but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice." Religion is not an immutable characteristic. It's not a slippery slope argument, but rather a direct counterexample of the principle given.

[chipotle_coyote]

This is where in Slack, I would add a thumbs-up emoji reaction as an "okay, gotcha," but I'll just have to say: okay, gotcha. :)

[sukilot]

Not drawing a line is a simple solution to the problem of where to draw the line.

Catholicism is an organization that as one of its main tenets is homophobic. How is that better (or is it worse) than being an Confederate flag-waver or a neo-Nazi or a Black racial separatist or ? I'm sure the answer is obvious to you, but only because of your personal idiosyncratic preferences. Evil is not an objective spectrum. It's a subjective high dimensional manifold.

[Miner49er]

So by no line you mean we should eliminate the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[kelnos]

I find this form of argument extremely exhausting as well.

I don't think many people would argue that we need a forum where people can advocate for pedophilia and child porn. We've clearly decided that sort of thing is bad. But saying we're going to ban child porn is not the same thing as saying we're going to ban vegetarians.

Certainly reasonable people can disagree on what types ideas deserve platforms. I imagine some (misguided but well-intentioned) people might think that providing neo-Nazis a platform to advocate for their position is a good and fair thing to do, even if they disagree with the neo-Nazi message. But it doesn't mean that people who don't think that's ok are somehow anti-free-speech fascist dictators who want to have control over every kind of speech.

I also get exhausted when people trot out the slippery-slope argument at every opportunity in order to shut down discussion. Not everything has to be a slippery slope! People are actually capable of making decisions in a nuanced, fine-grained way!

[adwn]

> [...] but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice.

Religion is a choice. Does that mean that you're fine with discrimination based on one's religion?

[mirko22]

And why not? If you say you are very religious and pray to your god before you push your branches I would look at you very weird, I am sorry... Maybe I am a bad person but...

And more over, everyone can register a religion these days, look at Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption... So if someone wakes up one morning and starts a religion out of a joke I should be forced not to discriminate against him?

But replace John Oliver with Jewish religion and now this argument sounds different.

But that is the problem with context... I don't like blanket laws making me do things.

[sukilot]

Religion (beliefs) is protected. That doesn't mean that all behavior practices by all religions are protected.

[jlokier]

Is religion a choice?

I'm sure many people who believe in $DEITY, and the duties which follow from this, do not see "belief" as a choice they are making.

[kelnos]

You've gotten downvoted for some reason, but I think you're right. The religious people I know could no more choose not to believe than I can choose to believe. Religious belief or non-belief comes as a response to life's experiences, heavily influenced by the level of indoctrination inflicted by parents when we're young.

When I was 11 or 12, I realized I didn't believe in god (I didn't know the term "atheist" at the time). My parents were Catholic, and I was forced to attend CCD weekly during the school year (the Catholic version of "Sunday School") in addition to weekly Mass. I tried so hard to believe in a god because I didn't want to disappoint or anger my parents, and I wanted to fit in with my peer group. I was trying to make a choice to believe, but that's just not a choice you can make. You either believe, or you don't.

In hindsight I'm glad I failed to choose to believe, but at the time I agonized over my non-belief daily, thinking there was something wrong with me.

[sukilot]

Once we assume free will doesn't exist, these debates are moot.

[afiori]

I'm sure many people who believe in $IDEOLOGY, and the duties which follow from this, do not see "belief" as a choice they are making.

[Miner49er]

yes

[sukilot]

You are missing an obvious dimension: discriminate within reason based on harmful behaviors, not characteristics nor beliefs.

Which is pretty much what US law says, because it's reasonable on avwrgt.

[Miner49er]

That seems harder to define, IMO. Casting a vote can be a harmful action, depending on who you vote for, for example.

[filoeleven]

> One should not discriminate on the basis of race, political orientation, gender, origin or religion.

Hasn’t that ship already sailed? The cake shop ruling by the Supreme Court seems to point to yes.

[alex_young]

By that same logic corporations should be forced to do business with parts of the government doing things completely in contrition to their mission right? A peace advocacy group would be expected to allow contracts with the military or a right wing think tank would have to sell its services to the Peace Corp?

[spideymans]

>I am strongly against a private business being able to refuse service to a person/organization on political grounds, even when the "victim" may seem to be performing evil actions, as long as it is not breaking any laws

If a government was committing acts of genocide, do you believe private enterprise should be compelled to be complicit in these acts?

[roenxi]

If a government is committing genocide private enterprise would be coerced into cooperation. The government would have gone rogue.

Besides, GitHub probably does offer services to the Chinese government bodies and it will be no surprise to anyone if it turns out they are committing acts of genocide against the Uyghurs. They are probably hosting code related to research and commercialisation of the facial recognition programs that various governments will be implementing.

To draw the line at Ice but not withdraw services from the Chinese mainland showcases the level of myopic politicisation that is being lobbied for here. They are a platform, they should act like one.

[dilandau]

Even more so since gh is part of Microsoft, a publicly traded company.

[marpstar]

GP didn't say they should be required to work with certain entities, only that it could jeopardize their stance with other, less controversial, entities.

[elicash]

> could jeopardize their stance with other, less controversial, entities

That would, of course, be a terrible and illegal abuse of power and essentially be the government policing political speech by private individuals. What an indictment of our government (and I don't mean a single person, but of the system itself) that this seems to be an uncontroversial statement. Because I agree, it's true, and it's the mark of terrible corruption.

[alonmower]

I’m not sure it needs to even be as nefarious as that. If I’m in charge of deciding what technology to use for another, less controversial, arm of the government and I see that one of the companies I’m considering has decided to stop doing business with another I might feel less confident in deciding whether or not to use them. What if they decide they don’t want to do business with me at some point in the future?

That might be overly naive and I agree that there’s great potential for corruption here as well.

[iguy]

Or not even an arm of the government. The same reasoning would be applied by other companies buying services. Vendors with a reputation for stopping service to clients because of bad news coverage are a risker bet.

[pmiller2]

That doesn't seem to affect Google much, and we all know how big G loves killing off products.

[iguy]

Have they killed many paid products?

I think there is justified wariness about building too much on top of any service given away for free.

[jfoster]

Choosing business partners based on the degree to which you can expect stability & reliability from them is not corrupt.

Not everything has to be political & tribal.

[elicash]

OP wasn't specific, but I interpreted it as government threatening action against the company -- such as the IRS opening an investigation of their taxes.

But let's take your example, since you aren't the only one who interpreted it that way. That would be covered by the scope of the government contract being awarded during the normal bidding and contract process. The contract would stipulate the terms by which one party could pull out of the deal. What would be illegal would be for political influence to discourage the awarding of that contract.

[malandrew]

Why would that be an abuse of power? The company has demonstrated that they are an unreliable government partner.

It's wholly different to not accept a contract in the first place, but to unilaterally end it for any reason, political or otherwise, is grounds to consider that service provider unreliable.

[munk-a]

The contract was brought to an end - but did the company prove they were an unreliable partner or did the government? These calls to end government association aren't coming from no where - these government acts don't have majority support and it's gotten to the point where individuals are feeling the need to take on personal risk to ensure that the government is actually aligned with the citizenry.

[lukevdp]

> but did the company prove they were an unreliable partner or did the government?

The company.

You can support the employees without needing to twist reality. There is no question that ending service on non service related grounds makes a company unpredictability unreliable.

[throwaway0a5e]

The likelihood of a potential vendor to actually be able to supply what they say they will has long been a consideration for government agencies. The novel thing here is that "political winds may change" is not normally considered a good reason to have that doubt for a US based company.

[goatinaboat]

Source code is a company’s Crown Jewels. Who can take the risk that their business will be shut down because an employee tweeted something 8 years ago that is now out of favour? At least Git by it’s very nature protects you but you would still have your issue tracker and CICD pipeline held to ransom.

[sukilot]

It's GitHub. As in git. If losing GitHub makes you lose your source code, you're gitting it wrong.

[goatinaboat]

That is why I wrote Git by it’s very nature protects you but you would still have your issue tracker and CICD pipeline held to ransom ???

[webmaven]

> you're gitting it wrong.

Very nice. golf clap

[no-s]

Well, I don't know. Freedom of speech is also a principle. Public accommodation and non-discrimination are also principled. We don't need laws to see these as a public good. We shouldn't parse these ideas into orthogonal pretzels just because wokeness.

[kelnos]

> We don't need laws to see [freedom of speech] as a public good.

I think it's very easy to refute this statement by looking at any country where freedom of speech isn't guaranteed by law. The most populous country in the world is a glaring example.

[no-s]

I mean to imply the principle transcends law, that the law does not provide the justification for the moral principle. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[sukilot]

You got it backwards. The fact that unfree nations are seen as human rights violations shows that free speech is a public good even when illegal.

[kelnos]

I'm not sure what the argument is, then? Either we need or don't need laws in place to ensure freedom of speech (clearly we do). If that's not what we're talking about, what is a law "recognizing free speech as a public good"? That... isn't a thing?

[djrogers]

Why don’t you peruse the elected members of the UN Human Rights Council and get back to us on who is seen as ‘human rights violations’.

[frewsxcv]

> We don't need laws to see these as a public good.

Yes, actually you do.

[nahtnam]

What about anti-discrimnation laws? Where do you stand on the issue with the baker refusing to bake a cake for the gay couple?

[jobeirne]

In societies that have full respect for private property, I should be able to refuse to do business with you for any reason, including the color of your shoes, the kind of music you listen to, or your marital preferences. Whether it is wise or rationally self-interested to do so is a different question.

[the-dude]

You are carefully tiptoeing around race & gender here.

[jobeirne]

Nope - in free societies you should be able to refuse service on any grounds, including those things. Otherwise you're permitting the government to forcibly compel you to allocate your time and resources to ends they define.

In free societies, governments should only be able to forcibly compel people not to do things (murder, threaten, steal, etc.) - see the concept of "negative rights."

[code_sloth]

In a your version of a free society, what happens when everyone refuses you EVERY single service because random-reason? They sure as heck aren't murdering, stealing, nor threatening you. They're just refusing to sell you anything because of random-reason, forever. Those services include sales of any food, water, shelter.

Taking it further, what if a majority of businesses gradually decide to be racist and refuse all services just because they can? Not serving minorities wouldn't really impact their bottom line all that much. The minorities would literally die off.

It's easy to talk about "rights" as if they exist in a vacuum i.e. my rights are mine and they do not affect anyone else, ergo my rights should be absolute. They are not, and should not.

Reality is usually a tenuous balance of rights (usually tilted towards the majority) that people participating in civil society share.

[0-O-0]

> what happens when everyone refuses you EVERY single service

If I'll ever find my self in a situation like this - I'll pack my things and run. I'm not going to be happy in a place like this even if government will force those people to tolerate me.

> if a majority of businesses gradually decide to be racist and refuse all services just because they can

That means anyone entrepreneurial enough will have access to an underserved niche market.

[incadenza]

In this fictional scenario every single community member has become a racist but the government legislative and enforcement bodies are immune from this trend?

Making something illegal may feel good, but if 100% of the population (by the terms of your scenario) are against it, legislation is hardly going to move the needle.

[chipotle_coyote]

I would actually suspect that in this kind of society -- the state isn't there to enforce discrimination, but it's also not there to redress it -- there would still be civil rights movements, and protests would probably be pretty vigorous. Businesses that discriminate would find themselves, their customers, and their suppliers put under a great deal of pressure. Sit-ins. Blockades. Rallies painting them, specifically, as villains.

As an aside, the relative absence of that kind of movement in libertarian thought experiments has always bemused me; I think there's a somewhat utopian "everything gets better when you take the state out of the equation" notion at play. Everything doesn't automatically get worse, but it doesn't automatically get better, either. If the society still has discrimination, prejudice, and unequal justice, it's still going to face pressures to reform; most of us would rather see where we live be made "better" in our understanding of the term than be forced to move somewhere else to find that "better," even assuming we have the resources to make such a move.

[VBprogrammer]

I mean this in the nicest possible way; have you ever faced discrimination based on the colour of your skin, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities or anything else which is protected by law in most civilised countries?

If, like a significant portion of the HN audience, you are straight, white, middle class and male it's probably easier for you to dismiss the right to fair treatment than it might be for individuals in those categories.

[dnautics]

I have. And you know what, civil rights laws did jack all to protect me. I'm much happier knowing that the people that operate that business were racist jerks (instead of, say, them being forced to serve me and spit in my food, which would be a health concern), and I have dissuaded probably on the order of a hundred people from going to that place, and that was in the era before social media.

[kuzimoto]

I don't agree with discrimination, and would never seek to engage in that myself.

With that being said, in the private sector, there really is no "right to fair treatment" with exceptions for anything required by law for affirmative action. By forcing fairness (where a business must provide service to someone it doesn't want to), you are simultaneously removing the freedom of association [0].

[0] While not explicitly stated in the US constitution is argued to be a fundamental human right.

[psychoslave]

>Nope - in free societies you should be able to refuse service on any grounds, including those things.

You know, in free societies, there is society. That is very different from "wild reign of every impulse going through the head of an individual", which of course would be impossible anyway as an individual is itself permanently full of conflicting impulses.

Not to do things and do things is only a matter of wording. Forbidding to kill people is equivalent with compelling to do something: people are compelled to repress their possible will to kill other people. Accepting to follow an interdiction is doing something. Only something that doesn't exist won't act in any way or an other.

[afiori]

> In free societies, governments should only be able to forcibly compel people not to do things

Well, how about "don't discriminate"?

I am not saying it is the perfect solution, but if you want to refuse a service you can always terminate your commercial venture. I do not necessarily see this a clear cut case of positive/negative right.

Similarly to how the state can compel you to get a driving license to drive. You can just give up on driving.

[nogabebop23]

HOw do you reconcile not forcing someone to do something with depriving another of life & liberty? The entire reason for protected classes is to prevent the majority from harming the minority.

>> forcibly compel you to allocate your time and resources to ends they define.

...as has been SOP in even the most permissive of societies throughout history. I'm all for classical liberal ideals influencing the world, but these extreme libertarian rules and values have never existed outside the minds of their most zealous believers and you don't have to get too far into the details to see their contradictions.

[kuzimoto]

You are completely right. In a free society you should have the liberty to do business with whomever you want (no matter how politically in-correct your reasoning is).

The great thing about this, is that someone else will realize there is now an under-served market, and create a business to fulfill that need.

The same case can be made for hiring practices.

[VBprogrammer]

> is that someone else will realize there is now an under-served market, and create a business to fulfill that need.

That is a childishly simplistic understanding of how free markets work. There is no way a retail business would be established to service the needs of 2% of the population who are wheelchair users for example, when they could easily make their stores considerably more efficient by making the aisles a little narrower.

[code_sloth]

> The great thing about this, is that someone else will realize there is now an under-served market, and create a business to fulfill that need.

Except that every other business can now refuse to serve that business services, because that business serves people nobody else likes.

Given even time and systematic discrimination, that business owner and everyone they serve will be driven to destitution and cease to be a meaningful market segment. They, along with the people they serve can't afford to buy anything anyways.

Should society should just let them die because of the magic of capitalism and (???) rights?

[tenebrisalietum]

If public property (streets, society built around cars, tax incentives) is being used to provide access to your business, for the mutual aid of both your business and the public, then you should not be allowed to deny access to the public for anything other than a business reason.

[afiori]

And let's not forget another fundamental contribution of the state: the currency itself.

[drekembe]

Maybe, but I would rather live in a society that has full respect for people than full respect for private property.

[kuzimoto]

Unfortunately you can't make everyone have respect for one another. If you force them via laws, that would probably just make them more resentful.

[afiori]

That is completely true, indeed the purpose of the law ought to be not to compel respect, but to allow vulnerable individuals access to society.

The intended outcome is not that people that want to discriminate stop existing (well, long term also...) but that non-discriminatory interactions can be allowed to flourish.

[pmiller2]

Forcing everyone to act as if they have respect for one another is good enough. They can resent it all they want, for all I care.

[afiori]

Property is private, but the market is public.

I am not sure how much legal barter is, but in many sense the currency is intrinsically linked to the public space of the state.

[Kaze404]

This is why nobody listens to libertarians.

[Klinky]

Sexuality is getting closer and closer to being a fully-protected class, so they are going to have to suck it up, just like the bakers who didn't want to serve black people decades ago.

They can deny service to anyone, so long as it does not run afoul of discrimination laws. ICE is not a protected class.

[PascLeRasc]

No one is born an ICE employee.

[umvi]

Whether you are "born gay" is up for debate as well. There are many instances of people "changing their minds" on their sexuality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Spacey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Dodson

[rdgthree]

I think this comment is reasonable if they're simply saying that it's plausibly true that not everyone who is gay is born gay - some choose to live their life that way, others are born that way.

I think this is a fair read on sexuality especially given the "spectrum" understanding of sexual preferences. If you're born 50% interested in men and 50% interested in women, you can very well choose to live your life (and identify) as a straight person or a gay person (or a bisexual person!).

That doesn't mean that others aren't born with a 0/100 ratio (one way or the other), though.

[afiori]

I vouched for this comment for a very specific reason: Civil rights of for the LGBT should not predicated on "being born that way", they should be predicated on the fact that it is an acceptable and dignified way to be human.

[woodruffw]

Being an immigration cop is not a protected class, and shouldn't be.

[gruez]

Simple: anti-discrimination laws only apply if you're being discriminated on the basis of being in a protected class. being gay is a protected class. Being ICE isn't.

[empthought]

In some jurisdictions being gay is a protected class, in others it is not. Even the USSC ruling today doesn’t create a new protected class; it simply (and correctly) determines that discrimination based on gender nonconformity (whether sexual orientation, gender identity, or other) is discrimination based on sex, which is already a protected class.

[nvahalik]

Would also love to hear the answer to this question. You can’t have it both ways.

[barry-cotter]

Of course you can. One rule for me another for you because I think these two things are different is easily understood by two year olds. Lawyers are perfectly capable of coming up with justifications for anything they like and if the judges feel sympathetic the power of the state will enforce it.

[mschuster91]

> Private entities shouldn't have to take on anyone they don't want as customers (for whatever reason - do you have to justify who you do or don't want in your livingroom?)

Actually that one is illegal in many jurisdictions, e.g. when it's a store refusing service to gays and lesbians.

[austincheney]

> (for whatever reason - do you have to justify who you do or don't want in your livingroom?)

In most casts that results in discriminatory civil suits. Imagine a restaurant, who has even greater leverage to test the for whatever reason mentality, asking a black family to leave without stating a reason. In most places in the US restaurants have the legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

[bananabreakfast]

This is a wholly invalid comparison. Ethnicity is a protected class of citizen and is illegal to refuse service based on it.

Federal agencies are not protected classes of citizens. In fact it is quite literally illegal to force a company to do business with the government if it doesn't want to.

[tehwebguy]

OP should have said "for whatever lawful reason"

Race is a protected class, occupation is not.

[austincheney]

The reason is only lawful if you can prove that discrimination is not solely due to that protected class. In the case where a group can refuse service for any reason and is not required to provide that reason this is impossible to prove even if clearly obvious.

[awinter-py]

not exactly comparable, but business denial of service was the cause of action in masterpiece cakeshop, a colorado civil rights case that appealed up to scotus

conscientious objection is a different case where you can fulfill your legal obligations in a way that's compatible with your religious or moral obligations -- if we created legislation requiring businesses to serve government agencies, there might be an implied right moral objection where use of force is concerned

[dnissley]

By this logic, businesses would be able to turn away customers based on their race.

[mbesto]

People don't choose the color of their skin.

ICE (or any other company/org for that matter) actually has a choice in how it behaves.

Do you see the difference?

[hobofan]

Isn't that what the status quo in the US is? AFAIK outside of discrimination in a few specific industries (e.g. insurance rates), there is very little discrimination protection for customers.

[oh_sigh]

You're asking if the status quo is that private companies can discriminate based on race? No, it is not.

[johns]

People are not agencies. Protected classes exist to protect people from discrimination, not to protect agencies/companies/organizations.

[drocer88]

And a business could refuse to cater a communist or fascist gathering.