In a world where organizations are radically transparent and individuals have radical privacy, before you join the disease support group or donate to the ACLU, you already know the organization's records about that transaction will be public information.
You can restrict your activities to organizations that do not keep personally identifiable information. Or you could join the support group with a pseudonymous identity or donate cryptocurrency to the ACLU.
The important detail is whether the funds were his personal funds, or whether they belonged to his company: i.e. was he acting on his own behalf, or on behalf of an organization?
It's an inane question, though, because the inane point you're trying to make is that individual privacy might protect homophobes. That's true, but it would also protect gays and allies who donated to oppose proposition 8. The fact that privacy allows people to secretly donate to political campaigns is the point. Part of the reason gay marriage is legal today is that people donated to people like Harvey Milk, at a time when donating to the campaign of a gay governor was risking your job and social standing.
Human rights still apply to humans who do bad things. If you are willing to give up human rights to fight bad people trying to do bad things, then those rights won't be there to protect good people trying to do good things, either.
> So a person spends money to support an odious cause, and that person gets money by being associated with an organization. You hate the odious cause, so you want to avoid giving your money to support people who will then give money to promoting that odious cause. How does that work? Do you no longer have the right to not indirectly support things in your ideal system?
Yes, but it would also protect people who donated to a virtuous cause. The fact that privacy allows people to secretly donate to political campaigns is the point. Part of the reason virtuous causes have had any success at all is that people donated to support them, at a time when donating to those virtuous causes was risking your job and social standing.
Human rights still apply to humans who support odious causes. If you are willing to give up human rights to fight bad people trying to support odious causes, then those rights won't be there to protect good people trying to support virtuous causes, either.
I'm attempting to clarify my question by removing irrelevant details, which it looked like you got hung up on last time.
> Human rights still apply to humans who support odious causes. If you are willing to give up human rights to fight bad people trying to support odious causes, then those rights won't be there to protect good people trying to support virtuous causes, either.
So you are willing to make it impossible for people to boycott organizations as a means of social change, as long as those organizations had an arms-length relationship with anything "political".
No. Please try to respond to what I actually say instead of making stuff up; this is a straw man argument.
There are plenty of other ways we could find out about organizations supporting odious causes and boycott those organizations, without violating the privacy of their members. In fact the the point of "organizational transparency" is to make it hard to hide when organizations do bad things.
In addition to accusing me of saying things I didn't say, you're ignoring what I actually did say. Are you willing to make it impossible for people to privately donate to virtuous causes as a means of social change, when donating to support those causes publicly so would be a risk to their careers and reputations? I'm not going to continue this conversation further if you won't respond to this point.