Hacker News Reader

Comment by systemvoltage | Hacker News Reader

> Firearms, explosives and dangerous materials

> Guns, gunpowders, ammunitions, weapons, fireworks and other explosives. Peptides, research chemicals, and other toxic, flammable and radioactive materials

Why does the payment processor get to dictate whether I can run a defense ordnance company or run a scientific chemical supplies store?

Some of this stuff needs to be challenged in the court or regulated so that payment processor has no say whatsoever in whatever their belief system says about legitimacy of a business.

View on HN

> Why does the fucking payment processor get to dictate whether I can run a defense ordnance company or run a scientific chemical supplies store?

Because they have the legal right to do so? They could ban companies run by redheads, if they like. As long as they're not discriminating based on very specific sets of criteria established by law, they get to choose who they do business with.

The government requiring private citizenry to associate with everyone who wishes to associate with them seems like a very dark path to go down.

While I agree with your point, I think banning redheads would violate Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No; hair color is not what that legislation covers.

It is entirely legal in the United States to discriminate against redheads, or people whose names start with B, or Hacker News users, or people who enjoy skiing.

https://www.fwlaw.com/insights/is-hair-a-protected-class#:~:....

If you read that closely, it doesn't apply in the slightest to the example.

I do believe that there could be an argument that discrimination on hair color could fall under national origin or color:

Under 29 CFR § 1606.1, national origin is defined as but not limited to: An individual's, or his or her ancestor's, place of origin; or because an individual has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group.

With the current court, almost certainly not; they're not inclined to expand the definition of "disparate impact" like that.

If a future Court ever decides hair color denotes national origin, fall back to a different example of your choosing; people with tattoos, Mac users, viola players.

Hair color is something you're born with and is a genetic mutation based off lineage and other factors. I don't think they directly corelate and it wouldn't necessarily even make it to the Supreme Court. Most businesses aren't going to appeal to say that they can discriminate based on hair color nor willingly admit to doing so, nor would they ever likely make the argument that they did it and that it is okay.

The law doesn’t say “things you are born with”, though. That’s a common theme with the specific categories it does name, but only those specific categories are protected.

It isn't specifically limited to those specific narrow words by the most limited means you're thinking. I'm sure they could make that argument, but only a fool would risk a discrimination lawsuit based on hair color. Even if that is the specific reason a person would have to be either a fool or want to try to challenge the law, and there is no guarantee after losing that the Supreme Court would even take the case. I don't think the Supreme Court would even want to touch such a case nor that it would be ruled on in the manner you're thinking.

You could discriminate against people with dyed hair colors, but I find it hard to believe that any court would say that a person's natural hair is not a physical characteristic of a national origin group.

They are common carriers. The elephant in the room is the Visa/Mastercard duopoly.

As a red head, this made me chuckle. Thank you.

Why do you believe that private companies shouldn't have freedom of association? Or put differently, why should the government be able to force Stripe to do business with people who Stripe thinks would not be good for their business?

In a world of free association Stripe would probably be more willing to do business with "high risk" companies because they could charge them substantially higher fees. The government directly and indirectly tries to discourage business with these kinds of companies which is why companies like porn websites, fireworks wholesalers and check cashers have a hard time getting bank accounts these days.

Sorry, who do you believe is preventing Stripe from charging higher fees to riskier accounts? Please be specific.

Also, what's your evidence that some payment processors don't handle porn because of government pressure, rather than just natural market forces? I had a friend who did tech for a porn company, and from what he says, even a well-run porn company has much higher rates of chargebacks (e.g., next-day regrets and "no honey I don't know what that charge is") and fraud (stolen cards, fraudulent affiliate program participants).

You mean the belief system of wanting to not get sued by someone who get's hurt or killed?

I was considering starting a weapons ordnance company, getting federal ATF license and bid on a contract to USG and NATO forces. I guess Stripe billing isn't going to be our choice of service. Stripe has really good invoice/PO processing APIs.

On the off chance there are more regulatory requirements to accept this sort of business and they don't want to build out the support necessary to do so? Maybe there's different risk profiles that they're not willing to accept

Reply on news.ycombinator.com