backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by 91TTZ.. on May 17 at 11:51 AM

It says the current gun debate has nothing to do with it

There's a lot of controversy surrounding the use of guns these days, and it's even starting to show in the retail sector as Square announces that gun retailers can't use its services. 

Square, the San Francisco-based mobile payment startup, has announced a change to its terms that says gun retailers cannot use its technology. The exact terms block sales of firearms, firearm hardware, ammunition and parts. It also forbids sales of weapons and "other devices designed to cause physical injury."

Square said its revised terms have nothing to do with the current gun debate.

“From time to time, we revisit our policies governing the use of Square to ensure they are in the best interests of our customers,” said a Square spokesman. 


Square isn't the first to snub guns. For instance, General Electric (GE) said it won't provide financing to gun retailers anymore. 

While many companies are looking to either take a stance on the gun debate or just be more sensitive about the topic in general, it seems odd that Square is choosing to block out guns. 

According to Southwick Associates, a research firm that studies the hunting and shooting industry, only about 30 percent of firearms are distributed to big retail chains like Wal-Mart while the other 70 percent are sent to smaller stores -- and Square aims to spread the use of its cash register-free mobile payment system in small stores like these. 

What do you think? Is Square's decision to axe gun retailers a good idea? 

Sources: Forbes, CNN Money



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/15/2013 7:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, it appears you are the delusional one.

quote:
Try descriminating by race, gender, sexual orientation, political offiliation, age, religion or dissabilities and see how long that lasts.


That applies to things like employment, not to servicing customers/end users. And even then, you can generally get away with it so long as you are not completely flagrant with your discrimination.

Note that private entities are in fact entitled to discriminate however they like. For instance, the Boy Scouts of America has had a very public "no gays" policy for decades. They also have a "no atheists" one. And they're well within their rights to do so, however misguided they may be.

quote:
Just look at your last statement about how the "gun guys" should suck it up. How much more arrogant and hypocritical can you be?


No, he's correct, assuming by "gun guys" he's referring to the group of (self-proclaimed) libertarians who get all up in arms over Second Amendment issues. They're the ones being arrogant and hypocritical by crying "unfair discrimination" and trying to argue that a privately operated company should not be free to choose the terms of their own acceptable-use-policy .

The company is a free entity, and under no obligation to be "fair". Any *real* libertarian understands this, and that as a consequence the company is entirely within its rights to refuse service to gun retailers.

You can't advocate freedom for all and then bitch and moan whenever someone uses that freedom to do something you disagree with. Or rather, you can, but you deserve to be called out on it if you do.


RE: Odd Choice
By Manch on 5/16/2013 6:58:58 AM , Rating: 1

A flower shop in Washington is getting dragged thru the courts bc she doesnt want to provide services for a gay wedding. They are saying she is discrimnating, she says she shouldnt have to go against her religious/moral code.

Square doesnt want to provide services to gun retailers. They are saying Square is dicriminating, Square says they shouldnt have to go against their policy.

Where's teh difference in these two scenarios?

Personally I believe Square and the flower shop should be free to follow their respective guidlines wether they are religious based or not.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone doesnt want my business, then fine. I'll take it to their competitors and they can go F themselves.

The Boy Scouts is a private organization, not a business, and that's why they can have the policy they do.

Your rant about Libertarians justs proves you are just as much a hypocrite as the poster you are defending.


RE: Odd Choice
By rs2 on 5/16/2013 8:56:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where's teh difference in these two scenarios?


There isn't one.

quote:
Personally I believe Square and the flower shop should be free to follow their respective guidlines wether they are religious based or not.


Yes, exactly.

quote:
A flower shop in Washington is getting dragged thru the courts bc she doesnt want to provide services for a gay wedding.


The thing is, pretty much anyone can drag anyone else to court. It doesn't prove that their claims have merit, in and of itself.

If there's a ruling made against the flower shop, that would be something. But until there is, it doesn't say anything either way.

For all we know the flower shop will win the case.


RE: Odd Choice
By 91TTZ on 5/17/2013 11:41:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The company is a free entity, and under no obligation to be "fair". Any *real* libertarian understands this, and that as a consequence the company is entirely within its rights to refuse service to gun retailers.


There's a divide amongst Libertarians that stems from different schools of thought. The original libertarians adhered what is now called "classic liberalism" (which has almost nothing to do with modern "liberalism") where they were for a relaxed government, less of a nanny state, and more personal freedom. Basically they're socially liberal,fiscally conservative, and don't impose their views on others. But lately you have hardcore, religious conservatives calling themselves "libertarians" and they don't share the same socially liberal point of view. They're really just corporatists who want a conservative religious society and unbridled capitalism.

Myself, I'm pretty socially liberal. I feel no need to control what other people do in their lives. It doesn't offend me if women get abortions or if gays marry. But I do not believe in affirmative action or nanny state type laws. To me that crosses a line where people want to actively push their liberalism on other people and shove ideas down other people's throats. To me, they're not any better than hardcore religious people who believe that there can only be one way to live- their way- and they're going to harass and push their religion on you every chance they get.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki