[unethical_ban]

>In a free society, businesses shouldn’t be able to suppress or punish customers for their political views.

>We just need to make political viewpoint a protected class as well.

I have not gasped at the outlandishness of an HN post in some time.

GoFundMe is not a grocer, or a transit provider. It isn't a power company. It is a luxury service in a free market with low capital requirements.

Under no circumstance should arbitrary businesses be required to cater to people of all political persuasions.

Protected classes exist based on attributes of ourselves which are immutable. You can't change being a woman, being old, or being a particular ethnic group. You certainly "choose" your political opinions.

[nitrogen]

> >We just need to make political viewpoint a protected class as well.

> I have not gasped at the outlandishness of an HN post in some time.

How else can a democratic republic preserve the diversity of viewpoints required for such a society to function? This really shouldn't be a controversial idea.

Differences of opinion are not only okay, they are essential!

Should a conservative landlord be able to evict anyone who voted for a progressive? Or deny renting in the first place?

> Protected classes exist based on attributes of ourselves which are immutable. You can't change being a woman,

I can't phrase this any less provocatively... Are you saying that all rights against discrimination end if one has a gender transition because it's no longer immutable? I really don't think immutability is the right line to use to decide who gets rights.

Religious belief is protected, and also mutable. Ask me how I know. Political affiliation needs the same protection.

[unethical_ban]

Should a conservative landlord be able to evict anyone who voted for a progressive? Or deny renting in the first place?

No, but housing is already protected. How can you possibly think GoFundMe and housing/food are the same thing?

I simply struggle to understand why a decent person should have to serve someone who wants to kill minorities, or who wants to end democratic government in this country.

Furthermore, you act like if you don't enact this protection you're defending, no one will serve people of different political opinions. The truth is you're making a mountain out of an anthill. Most places serve people of differing political views. I go to a bar with a "Fuck Greg Abbott" sign at the front of the bar, and they'll happily serve a Conservative as long as they aren't being hateful. I happen to go to a bar owned by a Trumpian, anti-worker, anti-vax conservative (I happen to respect some of the bartenders, and the food is good). I am allowed to eat there despite the lack of your proposed legislation.

P.S.

>How else can a democratic republic preserve the diversity of viewpoints required for such a society to function?

It's functioned for close to 250 years, and the more I read American history, the more I realize that the current tumult and animosity is actually the norm, and the "peace" of the postwar period was the outlier.

[8note]

That's a misunderstanding of what the transition is - the transition is on how the gender is presented, not the underlying gender.

That's not to say immutability is a great method to determine rights. Mind you, I don't think political affiliation needs such protections. Freedom of expression and association already handle interactions with political affiliation. The government guarantees your ability to have a political opinion, but not for other people respect it or to help you promote it. What people do with their business is still part of their view points - the real solution is to decentralize power more, so that even if you get thrown out for your political opinion, you can always work somewhere else that likes your politics

[seanw444]

Yeah, I despise general deplatforming, but "mandating that businesses accept everyone no matter the politics" is just as bad. Not everything needs a law.