No, it’s similar because it’s a business making a value judgement instead of a business judgement. It would be different if your exact argument hadn’t been used against those groups in the past.
I doubt we’ll see eye to eye as well. I’m not okay with discrimination and I don’t think the beliefs of corporations matter, even when they’re being judgey about sex stuff I don’t understand.
You should work on learning how to handle those feelings. Most people just ignore it when other people do stuff they think is gross if it’s not hurting anyone.
For example, I think egg salad is pretty gross. I manage this in my day to day life by “not buying egg salad”, and if I run into it I usually just “move along quickly”, or say “oh, no thank you”.
I doubt people are as pushy with furry porn as they are with egg salad, unless you and I live in shockingly different worlds.
🙄 On what grounds would doing so operationally impair the platform? Is it illegal? Does it prevent them from servicing other businesses in a timely fashion? Does it cost more money in a way that can’t be reflected in the service fee structure?
Explain to me what reason they would have for objecting that isn’t just a different way of phrasing “morality judgment” or “image management”.
Do you also think that a shipping company should be able to refuse to ship products from businesses they don’t approve of, even if it’s functionally identical to something else they would ship?
What about either of those companies refusing service to someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity?
People used to say it’s bad business to service gays, blacks, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics and the Irish. At some point we decided that businesses need to shut the fuck up and just do business without judging, or else their service has no place in society.
The free market that businesses love so much exists entirely through the grace and in the service of society at large. If they fail to at least not harm society, why should society extend that courtesy to them?
why should they be forced to process payments that facilitate things against their beliefs?
You’ll excuse me for thinking this means you think corporate beliefs are more important than the social benefits of neutral financial institutions.
To answer your question again without assuming anything about your opinion: they should be forced to process payments because they don’t have beliefs, it’s better for society if financial institutions only look at the business relevant portions of a business, and a legal obligation is perfectly sufficient to protect their business interests in reputation management. All the same reasons we don’t let shipping companies refuse customers for morality reasons.
Because they’re a financial institution, not an individual. They don’t have beliefs.
Arguing that corporate “beliefs” (image management) and interests take priority over societal order is ridiculous.
We regulate banks and financial institutions all the time. We regulate businesses all the time.
They should suck it up and treat businesses with legal activities and proper tax documents as just another business. Kinda like how we have laws that say that public shipping companies need to generally treat all customers the same. It’s why they don’t typically ask what’s in the box aside from questions related to operational characteristics. Porn doesn’t spontaneously ignite and threaten an aircraft, but lithium batteries can.
It’s not even legal risk. It’s brand risk.
There’s a difference with cannabis shops because that’s actually still federally illegal. As such, the required business accounts and tax documents required to use a national payment processor are often not forthcoming. It’s a low level regulation that you can’t generally tell a federal bank you’d like an account to store the proceeds of a federal crime.
With porn, the legal standards and protections are pretty well established. As long as the company is in possession of the required tax documents and business accounts, there’s no legal risk beyond the standard due diligence they need to do for every customer. Visa isn’t generally liable if a tire shop is discovered to be breaking a non-financial law. What processors don’t want is to have their brand attached to something that they worry could make them look bad.
So?
It’s a game with a representation of something that can’t even happen. It doesn’t even get to the point where you could have a discussion about simulation creating a demand for real that some things have because it’s not even remotely realistic.
It’s not my cup of tea, but that just means I don’t look at it.
It’s because you think it’s icky and you don’t know how to handle those feelings, isn’t it?
No, that makes them slower because theyre leaning into the wind. You want to try to mostly use A’s, because they’re the most aerodynamic, and anything else should be formatted as subscript to keep code size down and reduce drag. C should be avoided at all costs because it’s just going to catch the wind.
Technically we’ve always been there, it just hasn’t mattered because both meant the thing wasn’t happening in a consistent manner.
“Blocking a rule” is how they seem to be phrasing “vacating a rule”. The court held that the FTC didn’t follow the procedures it was given for establishing rules, and so the rule is malformed and void.
The supreme Court restricted nationwide injunctions, which are a type of court order forcing or prohibiting action, usually pending appeal to prevent further damage.
It’s the court deciding a rule wasn’t properly formed vs a court giving an order that reaches outside the scope of their jurisdiction.
Since a federal appeals court is an arbiter of federal law, deciding that a federal agency made a rule wrong is inside their jurisdiction.
It should be the case that a court can order you to stop breaking the law and you need to stop everywhere. The notion that the court can order you to stop dumping shit in a river and you can just move upstream across state lines and be fine is preposterous.
https://www.webstaurantstore.com/hellmanns-real-mayonnaise-24-gallon-drum/125HLMN8828.html
The largest sold to consumers through normal channels is a gallon. Typically used by people who are feeding a lot of people, like making a dish for a large family gathering, or by people who only go shopping once a month or less. Some people live an hour from the store, so they just buy an excessive amount of food and shop infrequently.
Every barrel you see on TV or in a movie is 55 gallon or 42 gallon.
Other sizes exist but those two are so prevalent that you really only see those. The size comes from the oil industry where it’s a standard unit. It’s common to sell oil in different units, but the barrel size is so common that everyone just uses the same container and maybe just rounds the units.
Can’t use a 42 gallon barrel , has to be the metric 160L, or the 200L 55 gallon drum.
We had a big push to try to adopt metric for a bit. It stalled out for various reasons, but it ended with metric units being required on food and stuff, metric being the official system of the government, and new things introduced in that period being referred to in metric.
So beverages come in 8, 12, 16, and 20oz, 1 liter, 2 liter, and gallon.
We also print both units on just about everything.
There’s also the family that uses mayo and only goes shopping once a month or whatever. Some of those bigger jars are something like two normal sandwiches a day for a month, which is totally possible if you’re packing lunch for two kids.
Some of our preposterous containers of food are because some people decide to live unreasonably far from a grocery store, or just go shopping infrequently and buy huge amounts of food.
(This has the side effect of making them buy bigger cars to hold the groceries and family that now has to come along because it’s such a long trip, and that makes it miserable so they try to do it as infrequently as possible, so they need to buy a lot of groceries to hold them over. )
For most things where dropping it is likely and would definitely break it. It also lines up with the cost change for glass going up as the container gets bigger.
I figure part of it is people having a preference for the lighter jar for big quantities, and liking the rigidity of glass for the smaller ones.
Because your post was about the people in the south who didn’t want this, and you held up the ignorant and misinformed as an example?
class consciousness, not culture war.
Because you were talking about culture war and I was responding to you?
Fucking hell, let me copy it for you again:
Those examples are from 105 and 60 years ago.
There are ways to make the point you’re going for, but invoking legislation that old doesn’t do it.
Do you see how maybe that was more of a comment about a weak example rather than disagreement?
You were “chirping” squawking blathering talking about how we need class consciousness rather than culture war. Maybe if you actually read what I wrote from a non-confrontational view you could understand that I was saying “victims of a culture war can’t ignore it”.
Feel free to ask me any questions as well, since I’m gathering you still didn’t read anything I wrote.
I actually thought you were interested in having a discussion for a minute and not just indignantly misinterpreting everything to take offense at.
I’ll say it one more time: ignoring a culture war being fought against you doesn’t make it go away, even if it’s just a proxy for a class war. Southerners are fully capable of making informed decisions, and at some point you just stop having sympathy for the ones who could choose to be better but don’t. It sucks that some people can’t choose and get hurt along the way too. Maybe the misinformed will eventually hurt themselves hard enough to stop fighting a culture war against the disenfranchised at someone else’s behest, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those that choose to hurt others.
An oppressed minority still means that there’s an oppressive majority who voted to hurt themselves.
Can you point out where I said it doesn’t? Are you even actually reading?
You act as though I railed against the notion of voter suppression when one sentence said one part of what you said wasn’t compelling for the point you were making.
I didn’t ignore your point, I fucking agreed with it a few sentences later. I called you an ass because you angrily said you didn’t read the reply after one sentence and accused me of being disingenuous.
Grow up. You’ll have a better time if you learn to live and let live without being bothered by what other people do that doesn’t involve you.