Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Well I see that now in his other comments, but the phrasing of the comment I replied to wasn't quite right. Discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily.

And last time I checked, a couple decades ago also includes 50 years ago.




Was the last time you checked thirty years ago?


Are you seriously going to argue the definition of couple and getting 5 upvotes for being wrong?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple

an indefinite small number : few <a couple of days ago>

Hint: the phrase "a couple" does not always mean 2.


I think it was phrased just right, there is no implication that discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily, it is just that for private dwellings these laws do not apply. You can like that or not but that's the way it is and it probably isn't going to change. A mans home is his castle, no matter how reprehensible his views.

And that works both ways, you can't be forced to attend the birthday party of a white supremacist either. (personally I'd rather avoid such people completely, effectively discriminating against the minority of white supremacists).

The discussion above has a 'scope', the scope is workplace discrimination. You can expand the scope but you can't expand it and declare a parent of the conversation of not addressing your expanded scope by poor phrasing at the same time.


there is no implication that discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily, it is just that for private dwellings these laws do not apply

You phrased it as though you support discrimination under the cover of private property. Private property is being used as a blanket excuse for discrimination which is being rightfully challenged in the US in situations such as this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1093375 There are obvious cases like this where the line between public and private is blurred, and at great cost to the welfare of minorities.

And that works both ways, you can't be forced to attend the birthday party of a white supremacist either.

That analogy is incorrect. The correct analogy is being able to choose to attend the birthday party of a white supremacist where admission was being offered to the general public except blacks.


You keep adding twists to your argument in later comments, it's a nice trick but it really doesn't work.

Birthdays normally are 'invite only', and as long as they are they are private functions. Birthdays open to the general public are not common (at least not where I live).

Open to the general public but closed to some subset (the people with red hair, people born on Tuesday and so on) are possibly illegal but as long as they are in someones private dwelling they have the right to toss out anybody for whatever reason so it's going to be very hard to know what the real reason is. In my country if I tell you to leave three times and you don't I have the immediate right to even use force to remove you, whatever my reason for not wanting you in my house.

Houses are special, they are not generally open to the public, and in case they are no doubt the rules change but that was not the example used. So don't twist it that way.


I am not adding twists to be nitpicking. The law is tricky, and many people try to abuse it to the maximum extent such as in the article I just pointed out.

A man's home is not always his castle. You cannot use it to break laws. At least in the US, you cannot:

1. Murder someone on your grounds unless in self-defense. If someone is found shot 5 times or in the back, you will be charged with murder!

2. Set lethal booby traps.

3. Smuggle illicit goods.

4. Having dogs fight like Michael Vick.

5. View child pornography.

Discrimination by selectively serving the public on private grounds, I believe has not yet been tested in the court of law, but this was the excuse that many private businesses had in the past when they decided to serve white people only.


It is worth pointing out that many workplaces are not open to the public either. So in both cases they are really "private except for a list of people of my choosing" and the difference is that in one case I am allowed to choose on restricted criteria and in the other I am not.


But a job offer is open to the public.

And it's at the hiring time that members from the general public are allowed to compete for jobs.


Members of the public may apply for jobs, but most will not be allowed to interview, and those who are allowed to interview will not be given the freedom to wander around the potential workplace.

The process is akin to the fact that everyone in the public is in my potential circle of friends, and once a friend you may be allowed in my house. But that doesn't make my house anything close to publicly available.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: