No, they can stop being nazi's at any point. Literally in less than a second.
Blacks, jews, gays, disabled people can't.
Stop trying to equate the two.
Are you pretending that nazism can be interpreted charitably?
I can kill someone and claim it's for buddhism or my local sports team, but there is no basis for either of those promoting murder.
Nazism not so.
But the difference (or similarity?) is that only a diminishingly tiny fraction of practitioners for either religion believes in stoning.
If I asked you to give me a few key points of the tenets of Islam and Christianity, would any be about killing, eradicating, or persecution of people?
If I asked you to do the same for Nazism? Are you going to pretend it's comparable?
Second, it's irrelevant. In my hypothetical, I'm talking about specific individuals who have conceded to believing that apostates should be executed. If they invoke their religion as a shield for having that view, and have done nothing otherwise illegal, you can't refuse to serve them under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The view on stoning in Bangladesh could be religious, but it could also be cultural, as it's not equal elsewhere where practicing muslims reside.
And if it, as I posit, isn't a core tenet of the religion, and if it is, as I posit, one in nazism, it can't be solved through cultural tolerance.
"Approximately 77,000 German citizens were killed for one or another form of resistance by Special Courts, courts-martial, People's Court and the civil justice system. "
"Almost every community in Germany had members taken away to concentration camps. As early as 1935 there were jingles warning: "Dear Lord God, keep me quiet, so that I don't end up in Dachau." (It almost rhymes in German: Lieber Herr Gott mach mich stumm / Daß ich nicht nach Dachau komm.)[17] "Dachau" refers to the Dachau concentration camp"
- Given EXTENUATING circumstances, the choice may be difficult to exercise.
And even then - many people exercised that right, even knowing the risks - because it was just the right thing to do, and being a nazi wasn't.
I'd note that I'm pretty sure by the time Nazi's owned the government in Germany it was too late.
They may stop looking and acting like nazis, but still believe the same ideas.
What do you really oppose? Nazis? People who look and talk like Nazis? People who perform horrible actions like the horrible actions the Nazis did?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/spoonuniversity.com/news/the-di...
At what point do I as an individual have the right to not associate with a group or ideology that's seeks my destruction? Because that's really what's at the heart of the matter whether we're talking about Cloudflare or just me because I'm sure that Cloudflare has Jews, racial minorities, and LGBT folks on their staff. And I'm sure even some of those folks are even investors. So why should the investors and employees of Cloudflare protect Nazis who seek their destruction? For money? I can accept that it's a matter of profit, but if you're asking for a moral basis to aid those that want to kill you I can't see there being any argument in favor of protecting or aiding them.
No it wouldn't - There is a large percentage of population joining Nazi parties for convenience, for their career or even out of fear. Are you going to deny them the food you sell from your shop? If they are Nazi's, are they still not human beings deserving to access food in the market?
Does someone being a member of the Nazi party mean we can let them starve to death? Shoot them and push them into a trench even?
The moment you dehumanise vast swathes of the population, you've already lost and dropped to the level of "Nazi's". It's not wise to let your enemies turn you into them.