Hacker News Reader

Comment by SkyBelow | Hacker News Reader

RedHat cannot choose to stop doing business with someone because they belong to a protected class, so we have already set the standard that government can force someone to do business with someone else. We can consider 'being forced to follow the contract you agreed to' as an invalid reason to stop doing business. Sure, it'll take a bit more work to get out the kinks compared to the 2 minutes of effort I put into it, but it shows a realistic way to limit this loophole. As with any law, not everyone will follow it, but that is rarely used as a reason to dismiss a law.

Edit: Fixed typo on how the current law works.

View on HN

Redhat can absolutely stop doing business with someone in a protected class. They can stop doing business with anyone in any protected class.

What they can't do is stop doing business with someone because they belong to a protected class.

You would have to argue that support of the GPL was a religious belief to gain such protections.

That was a typo on my part. I've corrected it.

>You would have to argue that support of the GPL was a religious belief to gain such protections.

Under the current law I don't think there is a path to allow this. I'm suggesting a new law. The reason for the new law would be to close a loophole which lets megacorporations skip having to follow contracts (or even laws, as there is a similar problem there).

That's not relevant to the point, since it's analogous to them choosing not to do business with someone because they redistributed the software. The motivation is not a point that's in question.

> cannot choose to stop doing business with someone belonging to a protected class

Think for a moment. Race is a protected class. How does anyone stop doing business with anyone?

> we have already set the standard that government can force someone to do business with someone else

You really don't want to go there. There's no reason to single out civil rights law when there are all sorts of other examples which are less contentious and less narrowly focused.

For example, common carriers provide a "service to the general public without discrimination" (quoting Wikipedia), where "discriminate" has a far broader meaning than a dozen or so protected classes of most civil rights laws.

Like, the phone company can't restrict people from having a conversation in ancient Egyptian, because they lack a compelling reason.

And common carrier law has existed for centuries.

But that's beside the point. Quoting https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... :

] In general, a seller has the right to choose its business partners. A firm's refusal to deal with any other person or company is lawful so long as the refusal is not the product of an anticompetitive agreement with other firms or part of a predatory or exclusionary strategy to acquire or maintain a monopoly. This principle was laid out by the Supreme Court more than 85 years ago

The example is almost directly relevant:

] Q: I own a small clothing store and the maker of a popular line of clothing recently dropped me as an outlet. I'm sure it's because my competitors complained that I sell below the suggested retail price. The explanation was the manufacturer's policy: its products should not be sold below the suggested retail price, and dealers that do not comply are subject to termination. Is it legal for the manufacturer to cut me off?

] A: Yes. ...

You wrote "being forced to follow the contract you agreed to".

That makes it sound like you know little about B2B contracts.

The law right now says forces you "to follow the contract you agreed to." You can be taken to civil court if you do not. So you proposal doesn't change things.

Further, literally every contract I've signed has a termination policy describing how either side, at their own discretion, can terminate the contract.

All Red Hat needs to do is terminate the existing contract and offer a new one. Those that don't want the new contract no longer have a contract. Totally legit.

>For example, common carriers provide a "service to the general public without discrimination" (quoting Wikipedia), where "discriminate" has a far broader meaning than a dozen or so protected classes of most civil rights laws.

Why would this be a better example, as this would mean having to argue a similarity for all businesses to be treated as common carriers, or else the new law would be limited only to some businesses which isn't the intent.

The example I gave shows that, with justifiable reasons, the government can limit the ability of any business to refuse service. Now it becomes a question of if working around contracts is a justifiable reason or not.

>The law right now says forces you "to follow the contract you agreed to."

For certain definitions of 'follow'.

>All Red Hat needs to do is terminate the existing contract and offer a new one. Those that don't want the new contract no longer have a contract. Totally legit.

And I'm suggesting a change in the law which expands the reasoning that such decision might be deemed to not be totally legit, just like they can't do so for certain reasons already as we have decided the social good of banning those reasons is worth the government having such power.

> Why would this be a better example

Because it doesn't specifically deal with members of a protected class, and follow-on discussion about which classes should have protection, nor real-world issues like how private clubs and religious organizations can legally discriminate against those protected classes, or how theater and movie productions can require an actor to be of a certain race (a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification).

> the government can limit the ability of any business to refuse service

It's very well understood that the government has that ability. The government can also force a business to allow someone in who is (or is not) not wearing an N95 mask, and also force a business to allow someone in who is exercising open carry.

There are many such examples.

Given that, why single out civil rights law and its associated sets of who may be discriminated against (discrimination against Jets fans is usually not illegal) and explicitly allowing discrimination, along with a dedicated federal agency (the EEOC) to interpret and enforce the law, along with equivalents at the state level?

Is it because you think your proposed changes requires that level of enforcement bureaucracy, and can't be handled by the current criminal or civil code?

> For certain definitions of 'follow'.

The legal definition is all that matters. Give a relevant counter-example.

> I'm suggesting a change in the law which expands the reasoning that such decision might be deemed to not be totally legit

And I pointed you to a Supreme Court interpretation which says that law will be found unconstitutional. United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/250/300/

Your law, should it somehow pass, would be knocked down by the courts. You need a constitutional amendment to justify this level of restraint of free trade.

Civil rights law says that restraint of free trade is possible because there is a tension between the exercise of free trade and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, and Congress has the power to find that balance.

Requiring customers to open carry, or to wear (or not wear) a mask are also based in interpretations of constitutionally allowed powers.

Your proposal does not give any similar justification for restraining free trade.

> RedHat cannot choose to stop doing business with someone belonging to a protected class

RedHat cannot choose to stop doing business with someone because they belong to a protected class

Everyone belongs to a protected class.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com