Jump to content
Hunter Stern

Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?

Recommended Posts

On 12/31/2017 at 10:07 PM, Hunter Stern said:

So again , and let me rephrase this, Should a company/business in SL with RL tax holdings and assets (whether they be virtual or tagible 3D printed accessories, or service) be allowed to practice exclusivity on what are protected categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation, political idiology etc., if said business is a real entity with the same rights and responsibilities as any other business in the real life world?

I have a business in SL and in no way have RL tax holdings and assets from it.. Why do you think every SL business does? 

To all of the people bringing RL crapola into this.. Please stop. This is about SL not RL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

In Texas at least pretty much anyone can perform a marriage ceremony for anyone with a marriage license.

Thats kind of what i was saying.. A JP gives you the marriage license and the church gives you the holy part.. You dont need to go to a church to get married.. I didn't, we had a JP perform the ceremony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Klytyna said:

 

You stated that the early cultists WERE the "rabble" but since you ask...

1. He made the cult an official Imperial religion, so it's then current crop of Proferssional Liars could stop being "rabble" as you put it, and walk around in expensive robes and telling people what to do, based on the "authority" of the work of earlier Cult Liars. 

2. He payed for the duplication and distribution costs of a NEW BOOK of Official Cult Dogma, that was prepared by the Professional Liars, in accordance with their carefully made selection of the works of earlier Cult Liars, that only supported THEIR side of the cult, and the cults supposed unchallengable authority. Just guessing but you might have heard of the New Book in question

3. Contrary to your claim, all early cultists were NOT "rabble", Constantine's Mother was a member of the cult, at least ONE of the 4 remaining gospels, was written by and aimed at a non rabble audience. In an age with NO state funded public education system simply being ABLE to read and write generally indicates a "non-rabble" status or support from "non-rabble".
 

No, the subject  was the writers of the gospels,  not later imperial converts.

Edited by Pamela Galli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

I have a business in SL and in no way have RL tax holdings and assets from it.. Why do you think every SL business does? 

To all of the people bringing RL crapola into this.. Please stop. This is about SL not RL. 

Oh really? Last I checked if you did have substantial earnings even from make believe land SL, in exchange on cash-out, you are responsible for reporting your own taxes. If you are not filing and reporting and you are making a sufficient amount in cash-outs to warrant a filing, then that is on you, not LL , regardless of its a make believe land money converted to RL cash (i.e. Income).

I do run have a company that files taxes each year, and if said company (which is also an licensed agent and body ) for my products in SL has any sales and cash-outs (yes that's where I deposit for earnings from anything made and sold by me in SL) then yes I am responsible for those taxes. I do not sell anymore and haven't since this policy was put in place.

And Drake, it's really bad form to be telling people what they can and cannot say or bring up or speculate on in a public forum. Without RL there is no SL so that went out the window to a degree.

As for "Please stop."

I say: Suck it Up Princess... or  don't read and reply if you are so apt to be triggered by such concepts or suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I have too, though I'm still angry that someone placed a huge octopus that rapes women in one of the most beautiful custom caves I ever created... :(

I agree, that sounds very much like discrimination. It should also target everyone, even people who won't bake cakes.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hunter Stern said:

Oh really? Last I checked if you did have substantial earnings even from make believe land SL, in exchange on cash-out, you are responsible for reporting your own taxes. If you are not filing and reporting and you are making a sufficient amount in cash-outs to warrant a filing, then that is on you, not LL , regardless of its a make believe land money converted to RL cash (i.e. Income).

Key words there Princess.. Not every merchant in SL cashes out. Dont assume we all do. 

I do run have a company that files taxes each year, and if said company (which is also an licensed agent and body ) for my products in SL has any sales and cash-outs (yes that's where I deposit for earnings from anything made and sold by me in SL) then yes I am responsible for those taxes. I do not sell anymore and haven't since this policy was put in place.

And Drake, it's really bad form to be telling people what they can and cannot say or bring up or speculate on in a public forum. Without RL there is no SL so that went out the window to a degree.

Well, you asked about Second Life businesses, not RL ones. Why people started talking about the civil war and RL issues is beyond me. This is a public forum in the Merchants section about Second Life, not Real Life. 

As for "Please stop."

I say: Suck it Up Princess... or  don't read and reply if you are so apt to be triggered by such concepts or suggestions.

OK.. I wont be polite. Piss off. You might be fine with off topic posts, but most aren't. 
Simple answer to your OP... NO, SL businesses can bann and kick out whomever they want. LL said they could. You can not bring a RL court case against a sim owner for doing so, to think you can is stupidity at best. 

 

Edited by Drake1 Nightfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread began in the General Discussion section, the bulk of the "off topic" conversation began there. 

The thread has been moved at least twice since it was started and in both cases the prior side topics have not only remained but continued. 

Deal with it or ignore the thread. 

Edited by Solar Legion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

This thread began in the General Discussion section, the bulk of the "off topic" conversation began there. 

The thread has been moved at least twice since it was started and in both cases the prior side topics have not only remained but continued. 

Deal with it or ignore the thread. 

Well, in a thread about what is and is not allowed should we not follow the rules and not have off topic posting? It is prohibited by the forum rules/guidelines... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Well, in a thread about what is and is not allowed should we not follow the rules and not have off topic posting? It is prohibited by the forum rules/guidelines... 

 

There is some ambiguity about off-topic posting in GD.  I think it says one thing in the guidelines and a Linden said something else .

 

  • Off Topic Content: Please keep your commentary relevant to the discussion and within the format that the forum, board or question and answer area require. (For example, in the Answers section, please follow the Q&A format of the discussion.) Content that is blatantly off topic is not permitted. You may also not post regarding subjects that do not relate to Second Life except in the General forum discussion board.
Edited by Pamela Galli
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Well, in a thread about what is and is not allowed should we not follow the rules and not have off topic posting? It is prohibited by the forum rules/guidelines... 

 

That ship already sailed - what you call off topic was started where such discussion is normal and was not removed during either move of this thread - do you really think users are just going to leave those discussions unfinished?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the thread has been moved twice, moderators obviously haven’t said anything about breaking forums rules for being off topic. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

That ship already sailed - what you call off topic was started where such discussion is normal and was not removed during either move of this threa rd - do you really think users are just going to leave those discussions unfinished?

Certainly not, otherwise people will remain uninformed about the purpose of The Civil War and the Gospels. :D 

Edited by Pamela Galli
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

Certainly not, otherwise people will remain uninformed about the purpose of The Civil War and the Gospels. :D

You left out the cakes, hairdressing, weddings and the Holocaust...

Discrimination! :D 
 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Klytyna said:

You left out the cakes, hairdressing, weddings and the Holocaust...

Discrimination! :D 
 

Didn't some people get ice cream in there somewhere also and not get others some,or am I thinking of a different thread?

Because I sure know that I didn't get any Ice cream ! \o/

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Didn't some people get ice cream in there somewhere also and not get others some,or am I thinking of a different thread?

Because I sure know that I didn't get any Ice cream ! \o/

Poor baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Klytyna said:

You left out the cakes, hairdressing, weddings and the Holocaust...

Discrimination! :D 
 

Wasn’t  this also the thread about Yorktown and the English not trying very hard?

Edited by Pamela Galli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:
On 1/5/2018 at 11:06 AM, Luna Bliss said:

I have too, though I'm still angry that someone placed a huge octopus that rapes women in one of the most beautiful custom caves I ever created... :(

I agree, that sounds very much like discrimination. It should also target everyone, even people who won't bake cakes.

No Callum, I'm afraid this was a very bad octupus as it only went after avatars with protected status. And I forgot to reveal that it also mansplained incessantly, adding an even more torturous level to the display :(

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:
22 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I haven't seen my 23 boys in years, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of them hadn't worked out a business model analogous to Kobe beef, where humans are given routine white wine massages before ending up on the menu. I sure hope they still recognize me.

..and I thought OctoPussy was a lot of..octopi.

You might also wonder whether the company 23andMe isn't a facade for something more... nefarious?

Edited by Snugs McMasters
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 6:10 AM, Luna Bliss said:

As a side note, it looks like there are some avenues one could pursue:

Federal Law

Although federal laws protect people from workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion, age, and disability, there is no federal law that specifically outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector. (Federal government workers are protected from such discrimination.) In recent years, however, some courts have been willing to extend protection to gay and lesbian employees by holding that they were victims of illegal "sex" discrimination for not living up to gender-based stereotypes. Based on these cases, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—the agency that enforces federal antidiscrimination laws—has taken the position that sexual orientation discrimination is necessarily a form of sex discrimination because it involves gender-based stereotypes of how men and women should behave and with whom they should be in romantic relationships. The EEOC is accepting and processing sexual orientation discrimination claims from employees, and in 2016, it filed its first two sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits on behalf of LGBT employees.

Whether sexual orientation is protected under federal law is a complicated and unsettled area of the law, which will ultimately be up to the courts to decide. For now, however, the EEOC is accepting and pursuing sexual orientation discrimination claims.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sexual-orientation-discrimination-rights-29541.html

Sure, though not proven in court as anything LGBT-themed have not been added to the official list in the united states. Only Congress can do that, and they don't dare as the Bible belt (most of the country between the coasts) would have heads roll. But that is neither here nor there. 

In the end it comes down to this: Shared space I am required to be inclusive. In private space, I have every right to be exclusive. "My house, my rules" - and in SL the TOS does allow for this as it generally mirrors RL: If you rent an apartment (pay for a private sim) then you can discriminate all you ever want.

I am not advocating for or against this scenario, I am only explaining the way it is. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 5:18 AM, Luna Bliss said:

When they decided to sell their goods from a private home/place of business they entered into a contract with society, and so society should have some say in what they are doing. For example, would you allow them to put poison into their goods just because they're doing it from a place they own?  Of course not...because when they decide to sell and benefit from society they need to accept some regulation from that society, because this is the fair thing to do -- both parties need some control here.

"Contract with society" - there is no such thing. I am In the United States, so that is where my points of reference come from. In the U.S. the Supreme Court has ruled against this idea on last year, if I recall correctly (may have been 2016) - a.k.a. "The right of association is part of the first amendment" (Boys Scouts organization right to deny (discriminate against) homosexual scout leaders) and "a privately-owned company is held close to the vest and as such the beliefs of those owners can be enforced throughout and within that company. (Cannot be required by law to provide certain services, a.k.a. abortions, when that practice is against their beliefs (suit against Obamacare))"

Yes: I do paraphrase here. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Qa Boa said:

"Contract with society" - there is no such thing. I am In the United States, so that is where my points of reference come from. In the U.S. the Supreme Court has ruled against this idea on last year, if I recall correctly (may have been 2016) - a.k.a. "The right of association is part of the first amendment" (Boys Scouts organization right to deny (discriminate against) homosexual scout leaders) and "a privately-owned company is held close to the vest and as such the beliefs of those owners can be enforced throughout and within that company. (Cannot be required by law to provide certain services, a.k.a. abortions, when that practice is against their beliefs (suit against Obamacare))"

Yes: I do paraphrase here. :)

But not if the organization is primarily commercial in nature:

Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984)

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/association.htm

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Qa Boa said:

"Contract with society" - there is no such thing. I am In the United States, so that is where my points of reference come from. In the U.S. the Supreme Court has ruled against this idea on last year, if I recall correctly (may have been 2016) - a.k.a. "The right of association is part of the first amendment"

When defining 'contract' here I am meaning this definition in Dictionary.com:
 1.an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
So I am referring to something else...not a legal contract on paper.

What is this something else? I could call it 'fairness', and perhaps this is even specified in the constitution with all it's talk of 'justice'. I am not a scholar of ethics or the constitution, and don't need to be...but, I really don't want to debate over the legalities of this 'contract'...what I'm speaking to is the aversion someone would feel if they, for example, saw an adult stroll up to a baby carriage and grab the candy right out of the little babes hands and start chowing down on it. As far as I know there is no legal document that states we cannot take candy from a baby (although of course ownership legalities would apply), but most of society does indeed believe this is a kind of unconscious law that is in place (and not 'just because' it is individual ownership) -- they see the power imbalance and feel it is not 'a fair fight'.

I think the problem may lie in the fact that you (as an assumed seller to the public) do not recognize being in a position of power in relationship to those you sell to -- it's certainly not as clear as taking candy from a baby, but sellers are indeed in a position of power. As a seller of goods, society needs us (when someone needs they have less power), plus we could do all kinds of nasty things to our buyer without regulation, and most would say we have an obligation to consider their needs, to be fair -- yes when we decided to have a relationship with society via selling our wares we have entered into a kind of contract (or should have).
This power, through CHOOSING to sell to the public via our own, owned private space....these considerations trump the "right of association" you mentioned.
I'm not saying the seller has no rights whatsoever, but when a seller decides to interact with the public they MUST consider the needs of that public too, and not claim they have all the rights just because they own the house where these goods are being produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Qa Boa said:

In the end it comes down to this: Shared space I am required to be inclusive. In private space, I have every right to be exclusive. "My house, my rules"

There are many things we can't do in our own RL homes, most especially if it affects the public in a harmful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is their private property they should be able to choose who they allow. 

If you force integration you won't make neither side happy, and you will eventually go full circle and become who you claim to fight, just like how D*** March Chicago expelled Jews from their march, and called them 'Zio' on tweeter (which was ironically, a word pioneered by David Duke)

Public space is for everyone, private property isn't.

 

Edited by iamyourneighbour
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...