Quote:
Originally Posted by carld
Being legal has no bearing on it being discrimination or not, or being wrong or not.
|
Exactly.
The problem with these conversations is that there's always someone who starts to argue the issue from a "legal" point of view.
The legality of the behavior is, at best, secondary to the discussion. I don't think anyone is arguing that Bezos should be hauled off in an orange jumpsuit.
The *point* of this thread - as I see it - is to inform MR users that boy-on-boy sex is being quietly pulled from Amazon while mixed-pair and girl-on-girl is still allowed under the vague "no objectionable content" rules. In other words, if you are gay or if you like gay erotica, Amazon finds you
more objectionable than if you are straight or like "girl-on-girl" erotica (I hesitate to call it lesbian erotica since so much of it is clearly manufactured for a straight male readership).
The posters can then choose to not spend their money at Amazon and/or complain to their customer service
as they see fit.
I've already said that my argument is not a legal one but rather a moral one. Arguing with me on legal grounds - as Xanthe is doing - is utterly pointless because my argument is not a legal one, which is what I said from the outset. (It would be like going back before the civil rights movement and arguing that "separate but equal" wasn't discrimination because the law said it was fine and dandy.)