[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.

[umvi]

It's not useful to assume free will doesn't exist for this very reason. All debates are moot. Democracy is 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.