Conservative social media site Gab BANNED from three Banks in three weeks due to media smears

[durangodawood]

Your question actually makes my point. The decision to not do business, while possibly having legal consequences, is in reality a moral decision. So the baker in Colorado can make a moral decision, and a bank can make a moral decision. So legalities aside, the baker and the banks are either both right or they are both wrong.

Uh no. You ignore the differences between the two.

 

[hislegacy]

Thanks for making an example of yourself.

You are very welcome.

 

[Larniavc]

Name a country in the world that holds elections, where you could not make application?

I don't understand the question make application?

 

[Hammster]

Uh no. You ignore the differences between the two.

No, I’m not. Both are doing business, and both have standards.

 

[hislegacy]

I don't understand the question make application?

Certainly.

Then you're in trouble. As an outsider looking in the American 'Way' seems only to revolve around how much profit can be generated.

Profits come from people and votes come from people. So votes and profit in America are basically the same.

Does that make sense? It's because of the invisible hand of the free marker operates on a similar principle.

A perfect example of late stage capitalism.

The bolded text sounds like you are saying it is a uniquely American issue. I singled out the red text for my question:

Name a country in the world that holds elections, where you could not make application?

In other words - if your statement in red is accurate, can you name a country on earth, where they elect their politicians (certainly including the UK), where profits do not come from people and votes come from people, so votes and profits are basically the same.

That line of reasoning would indicate that is not the American "Way", but also the British, German et al way.

I hope that clarifies

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, I’m not. Both are doing business, and both have standards.

"standards..."

 

[durangodawood]

No, I’m not. Both are doing business, and both have standards.

Yes. We know there are similarities. Again you dont mention the differences.

 

[Hammster]

"standards..."

And again, that makes my point.

 

[Hammster]

Yes. We know there are similarities. Again you dont mention the differences.

The differences are that one is an independent business where the owner and decision makers is know and how he came to his decision. The other is a corporation where we don’t know the decision makers, or the real reasons.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And again, that makes my point.

Indeed -- If your point is that you support this as much as you support the Colorado Baker.

Both are doing business, and both have standards.

Otherwise, you might want to clarify your "point."

 

[Hammster]

Indeed -- If your point is that you support this as much as you support the Colorado Baker.



Otherwise, you might want to clarify your "point."

My point has nothing to do with support. It has to do with the fact that the businesses have their own standards. On what basis can you say that one is right and one is wrong?

 

[TLK Valentine]

My point has nothing to do with support. It has to do with the fact that the businesses have their own standards. On what basis can you say that one is right and one is wrong?

My basis.

On what basis do you say it?

 

[Strathos]

Interesting that as a Christian, you would balk at talking about your King. (And I’m not the one who brought up Christianity)

This is the American politics subforum. By needlessly engaging in theological debates with atheists (who are obviously not going to listen) you're avoiding the topic of the thread.

If you want to try convincing atheists that God exists and that His laws are moral, there is the Ethics and Morality subforum for that.

 

[bèlla]

All digital businesses are subject to rules and can be dropped from merchants (and your host) for inappropriate behavior. This has been happening for years and is only getting press because it’s political.

People who deal with controversial subjects run into this all the time. And right now, conservative rhetoric is controversial to some. They knowingly built a platform that allowed discussions on hot button topics. In spite of the numerous examples of unrest and backlash on these subjects.

Businesses must weigh the risks of serving political and religious demographics. They’re extremely vocal and the fallout can be bad. There are safer ways to make money on the Internet. If you opt for risk you pay the price.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[durangodawood]

The differences are that one is an independent business where the owner and decision makers is know and how he came to his decision. The other is a corporation where we don’t know the decision makers, or the real reasons.

The salient difference is that we as a society have decided that you are free to discriminate in the marketplace for most any reason you choose.... except for identity.

For instance you cannot decide not to serve Chinese people. You can turn people away for shabby clothes or ideological disagreements, but not because of indelible aspects of themselves.

 

[Hammster]

My basis.

On what basis do you say it?

We are all made in God’s image. Because of that, no one person is better than another.

 

[Hammster]

This is the American politics subforum. By needlessly engaging in theological debates with atheists (who are obviously not going to listen) you're avoiding the topic of the thread.

If you want to try convincing atheists that God exists and that His laws are moral, there is the Ethics and Morality subforum for that.

I’m not engaging in theological debates. I’m proclaiming that Christ is King, even over American Politics.

 

[Hammster]

The salient difference is that we as a society have decided that you are free to discriminate in the marketplace for most any reason you choose.... except for identity.

For instance you cannot decide not to serve Chinese people. You can turn people away for shabby clothes or ideological disagreements, but not because of indelible aspects of themselves.

Society is the ultimate authority then?

 

[hislegacy]

The salient difference is that we as a society have decided that you are free to discriminate in the marketplace for most any reason you choose.... except for identity.

For instance you cannot decide not to serve Chinese people. You can turn people away for shabby clothes or ideological disagreements, but not because of indelible aspects of themselves.

What if they are Chinese with ideological differences and claim you are turning them away because you are racist towards Chinese?

It is a slippery slope.

 

[durangodawood]

Society is the ultimate authority then?

For making laws, yes.

We're trying to balance out competing values:
1. freedom (including to discriminate however you please)
2. economic access (market participation should not be denied to people)

Society seems to respect freedom up to the point of denying people market access based on who they fundamentally are. Thats the balance we've struck.

Added to market access is a broader goal of some sort of social harmony, recognizing that racial discrimination has been a disaster both morally and practically for our country. So we draw the line there. You want to discriminate on any other basis, ok go for it, even if its distasteful. But we've had enough of racial discrimination.