Hacker News Reader

Nobody's being coerced to do anything. They have the completely free choice to take the shot, or not. Either way, they must accept the consequences of their choice. This is not coercion; nobody's holding any guns to anyone's heads or holding people down and forcing the shot on them. What's being dialed up is the severity of consequences of not taking the shot.

View on HN

Let's say that an American municipality instituted a rule that people who profess Muslim beliefs are to be excluded from gathering in public establishments. No one would be physically forced to abandon their faith, and they would have the completely free choice to remain Islamic and accept the consequences.

Would you not perceive any coercion here?

Correct. It's not coercion. The fact that it's wrong to discriminate against someone due to their religious faith and to violate peoples' right to free assembly is orthogonal to the question of whether it's coercive or not. In other words, this is a false equivalence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com