Re: America
I wonder if the aim of the law was (say) to allow a purveyor of children's bouncy castles to be allowed, in law, without fear of discrimination or legal comeback, to decide without explanation to not hire their wares to paedophiles and predators. Or let's say I run a hotel that's situated in a very old timber framed building with low ceilings, windy corridors and steps everywhere - should I have to gut the building so one person in a wheelchair (who might not ever stay with me) could possibly navigate their way through?
A couple of somewhat silly, Daily Mail-esque examples, I'll grant you - but if I run a business and decide my business won't have dealings with a person or group of people for whatever reason, where should discrimination law step in, and where should the law step back and allow the collective market to call me an asshole and take their business elsewhere because (say) for aesthetic reasons I decide not to serve gingers. (I am ginger myself before the indignant frothing starts).
It may be that I am completely misreading this law (IANAL) and it is, indeed, simply bigoted and crazy. But, knowing PayPal, they'll have an darker ulterior motive not being discussed here; and reporters on aspects of law and legal matters are looking for an angle and a pithy headline way before they are looking for accuracy and detail. And we do so like to get riled and outraged and 'triggered', don't we?
So to any lawyers reading: what's really happening and what's really been signed into law here? And exactly what are PayPal up to, because so far, they haven't shown themselves to be a beacon of morality.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
