I agree. No one should take Stripe's civil liberties away from them.
I'm not seeing the parallel to Stripe choosing who they want (or don't want) to do business with.
Especially since there is no "blacklist" circulated and used by everyone in that industry.
Stripe doesn't owe anyone the right to use their services. Just as an airline can bar anyone for most any reason (unless that reason is membership in a protected class[0]), Stripe can do the same.
I only think it's morally wrong.
All the Hollywood studios (a bunch of different entities) conspired with each other not to hire those people.
Stripe is a single entity and isn't (AFAIK) working with others on the payment processing industry to block a specific set of people/groups.
And it's protected (and IMHO, should be) because it's a political organization -- Stripe has the right (as do you or I) to choose whether or not they wish to support (verbally, financially or through other material methods) any particular political party, policy position or candidate.
Let's say that you own a business that makes t-shirts. And you strongly support candidate X. Should you be required to make t-shirts for candidate Y (candidate X's opponent)?
And if you chose not to make t-shirts for candidate Y, is that morally wrong?
Except there isn't a duopoly in online payments. In fact, Stripe is just one of many (and not anywhere near the largest) payment processors[0].
[0] https://www.business.org/finance/payment-processing/largest-...
Why must it be through an online payment processor?
My bank will send payments for me. And I can write a check and mail it to whoever I want.
you don't really believe what you're saying do you? that's like telling blacklisted hollywood writers and actors that they can make their own plays in their backyards
We're talking about a candidate's campaign fundraising operation. Which is odd in and of itself, because as far as I know that candidate isn't actually running for any office.
You've moved the goalposts far enough, haven't you?
No, it's not a private business.
> They were within their rights to make a blacklist
No, making an agreement in restraint of trade is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
They didn't do that, just like the tech giants are not doing that now, as they take the same action at the same time against the same target.
Neither publication not open admission are necessary for a combination in restraint of trade to be illegal, and you'd usually want to avoid them since they make it much easier to prove.
Can you give me an example of something that has happened recently in regards to QAnon where their first amendment rights may have been violated?
Internet businesses are natural monopolies and being banned from one can ruin your life without trial in a way that was unprecedented for private companies to be able to do in the past. In the near future somebody who is banned from both Paypal and Stripe will be close to being perpetually unbanked in some lines of work. The way progressives have cheered on giving tech companies this much power over our lives has been dispiriting
What solution do you propose? Take away the right of association from one group of people to enable another group?
That seems strange to me. If you allow the government to create a precedent where you can restrict the rights of anyone, then you can restrict the rights of everyone.
That idea makes me very uncomfortable.
No. I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'll try to boil it down to as few words as possible:
If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.
As for the example you give, bakers don't have to bake a cake for gay weddings.
>If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.
This applies to Stipe and Paypal too. They can arbitrarily prevent anyone from operating an online business. The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on.
I'm not sure why you bring that up, since that's not a position that I've advocated, nor is it one that I support.
I find your repeated strawman[0] arguments quite tiresome.
I believe Trump supporters, especially the QAnon weirdos, are wrong to believe the things that they do, but they are less wrong than the people who supported the Soviet Union during its genocidal reign. Unless people are charged and convicted of a crime, their livelihoods should not be taken away by the whims of these powerful companies selectively enforcing their rules. McCarthyism was wrong then and it's wrong now, even though its targets are wrong too.