[hackinthebochs]

>Rather, one company... chose not to process online credit card transactions for them.

I don't see how people can make this argument with a straight face. If you accept that this one company should be allowed to decide to cut off someone for ideological reasons, you tacitly accept that all companies could cut someone off for the same reason. Hiding behind it being "only one" right now is to use a technicality to dodge having to defend the principle you are implicitly advocating. The action isn't more right or wrong because one or more company is doing it--you either defend the principle at full usage or you disavow it.

[nobody9999]

>I don't see how people can make this argument with a straight face. If you accept that this one company should be allowed to decide to cut off someone for ideological reasons, you tacitly accept that all companies could cut someone off for the same reason.

I'm not people. I'm just me and don't represent anyone else except myself.

As for it being "just one company," that isn't really important. It could be 10 or 100 or 1000 companies and I'd say the same thing.

And not because of the content of the political views being (or not) supported.

It has nothing to do with any of that.

If the government can force Stripe (or anyone else) to support a particular (it doesn't matter which one either) viewpoint by forcing them to associate with a person or group they don't wish to associate with, then they can force me (or you, for that matter) to do the same.

I can't and don't speak for anyone else. For me, it's about specific constitutional rights. I don't and won't support abridgement of those rights for anyone, whether I agree with them or not.

If you believe that it's just fine for persons or organizations to have their freedom of association rights abridged, then you are anti-freedom and stand in opposition to the liberties and ideals in my constitution.

And if that's true, then so be it. But don't try to pretend that your argument is anything other than an anti-liberty, anti-democratic (small d) one.

[hackinthebochs]

>If you believe that it's just fine for persons or organizations to have their freedom of association rights abridged, then you are anti-freedom and stand in opposition...

This is utter nonsense. For example, abridging a company's right to not "associate" with minorities/gays/etc, i.e. their right to not serve them, is not anti-liberty. If the goal is maximizing liberty, it takes targeted regulation to achieve the maximal state. Ensuring everyone can participate in the economic and social infrastructure is a feature of maximizing liberty.

[nobody9999]

>This is utter nonsense. For example, abridging a company's right to not "associate" with minorities/gays/etc, i.e. their right to not serve them, is not anti-liberty. If the goal is maximizing liberty, it takes targeted regulation to achieve the maximal state. Ensuring everyone can participate in the economic and social infrastructure is a feature of maximizing liberty

I didn't realize that I needed to specify that this didn't apply to protected classes[0]. I assumed that was understood, but I guess not.

Yes, there are a number of groups (see link) which individuals and businesses are barred from discriminating against. But in this circumstance, that's irrelevant.

Because political affiliation is not a protected class under federal law, and even where it is (CA, NY and a few other states) that only applies to employment issues, not business-to-business contracts/transactions.

The right to political association has never been abridged, nor should it be. Any suggestion otherwise is, as I said, anti-liberty and anti-democratic.

Political choice is a bedrock principle of our system. And forcing anyone to support a political viewpoint they do not wish to support violates both settled constitutional law and the ideals of a free society.

Nitpick about protected groups if you like, but there's no "there" there.

The law is the law. We are a nation of laws. We are not a nation of "do what hackinthebochs wants."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

[hackinthebochs]

There you go again, hiding behind technicalities to dodge the interesting discussion. Laws aren't magic; protected classes aren't magic. The laws reflect our understanding that abridging liberty in some narrow cases served the greater good in some manner. My argument is that some restrictions on liberty serve to maximize liberty more broadly. If you want to argue that political viewpoint should not be one of them, you have to actually make the argument. Simply citing the law doesn't make your case.

[nobody9999]

Political choice is a bedrock principle of our system. And forcing anyone to support a political viewpoint they do not wish to support violates both settled constitutional law and the ideals of a free society.