>For the people following along at home, parent is talking about "Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género" AKA LIVG, which is a law containing gender-violence provisions aimed at a specific form of inequality in intimate-partner violence, as we (Spain) has a lot of that.

Which, to be clear, does explicitly discriminate depending if the aggressor is a man or a woman, since it defines gender violence as something that men do to women, explicitly.

You are not even disagreeing. You are arguing in favor of such discrimination and justifying it. This is not the place to argue such matters but the point that generally considering a law to be constitutional or not is no guarantee is more than proven.

It actually is that. Once again I ask you that you read the articles which quite clearly say what I said.

As you said, despite being flagrantly unconstitutional since men and women are supposed to be equal, the constitutional court said it’s okay to have different prison terms for men and women for the same exact offences.

I have no idea about that law in particular and no dog in that fight, but I find

> The Constitutional Court has also upheld it, meaning it's quite literally not unconstitutional.

a weak argument when stated that absolute. Constitutional Courts occasionally shift in their opinions over time. If they do change -- has the previous court violated the constitution? Or is the constitution flexible enough to hold opposite viewpoints without being violated? Doesn't it become very flimsy at that point?

I think a better wording would it is not currently considered to be unconstitutional. It might be in the future if the court changes. Naturally that only happens over longer periods of time as old judges die and are replaced with younger judges who were born in a different era and raised with different values.

Yeah, I'll let a company I don't do business with dictate who I actually do business with just because of their money interests. I don't like or use Cloudflare, I believe they are not good for the internet due to how centralised everything gets on them, and their blocking of non-mainstream setups (browser, OS, Javascript, no VPNs, no Tor and so on); but I'm not letting a football company say "we don't care about screwing you, we are blocking this"

> Maybe don't use Cloudflare

They've also blocked Fastly in the past. I doubt any large CDN is immune.

> if you know that doing so will make it unavailable for 2-3 hours per week?

You expect companies all across the world to abandon their CDN providers because two countries (Spain and Italy) are being dicks about futbol?

That's very shortsighted, this pragmatism might work for a while but when enough companies do the same then some other infra provider would become the new big one, pirate sites would move to it, and La Liga would also block it, bringing everybody to square one.

Yes thanks that is what I did, you'll see I used the past tense