California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to sue online providers

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by wongarsu on Sunday April 12, 2020 @07:06PM (#22851701)

Suppose I make it a known policy to reject as client all companies with at least one Asian owner, Asian major shareholder or Asian board member. If my company is a major market player (or if this policy were widespread) then this creates an incentive for companies to avoid having Asians in those positions, and puts all Asians at a disadvatage. That seems like a civil rights issue to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by bluGill on Sunday April 12, 2020 @09:38PM (#22852344)

You also need to have either no competition, (or incompetent) and some barrier to entry. Otherwise companies will just by from your competitor.

History has plenty of examples where it works, however in many other cases the policy just limits those trying it. Most people don't care enough about your prejudice when they can get a better deal and suddenly the out group becomes normal business partners.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by pmiller2 on Sunday April 12, 2020 @07:12PM (#22851740)

That’s a fairly absurd example all around. As a practical matter, any public company of any size will probably have at least one Asian shareholder.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by wongarsu on Sunday April 12, 2020 @07:28PM (#22851824)

85 years ago such policies existed in Europe with Jews instead of Asians as the target, in the current climate you might instead substitute "Asian" with "Chinese". The race doesn't really matter, it's the concept that matters.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by pmiller2 on Sunday April 12, 2020 @08:04PM (#22851977)

You are missing the point. Your logic means no business can refuse to deal with any public company, because any company of any size has a(n) $ETHNICITY shareholder.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by dragonwriter on Monday April 13, 2020 @12:18AM (#22853139)

> Your logic means no business can refuse to deal with any public company, because any company of any size has a(n) $ETHNICITY shareholder.

No, nothing offered upthread suggested that. First of all because it didn't refer to merely having a shareholder of a particular ethnicity, but more critically because it didn't suggest it was illegal to refuse to do business with a company that happened to have a major shareholder or board member of a particular race or ethnicity but that it was illegal for a business to refuse to do business because of the race/ethnicity of some party holding a specified role ownership/management role within the target firm.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by ineedasername on Sunday April 12, 2020 @11:26PM (#22852932)

I think you are bypassing the issue the GP was addressing: You said the scenario described by the GGP was absurd. The GP provided a concrete example of that scenario.

GP was disputing your characterization of the example as absurd, nothing more.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by wongarsu on Sunday April 12, 2020 @08:11PM (#22852006)

You can always start with "more than 50% of shares held by $ETHNICITY", and if you notice that you have an effect you can slowly lower the limit to allow fewer and fewer $ETHNICITY shareholders.

[ Parent | on HN ]

[dead]

Re:California Supreme Court: Transaction is not required to ... by Retric on Sunday April 12, 2020 @08:30PM (#22852084)

If we’re talking globally then plenty of examples of that exist right now.

I don’t know your gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin, but I can guarantee someone you’re going to have issues doing business because of discrimination. Saying X in not an issue in a country where X is protected/prohibited/regulated etc is a very week argument for getting rid of the associated laws.

[ Parent | on HN ]