LGBT Staff Won't Serve Christians

[dblack]

The FCC already has kicked down that door several times. Creating a social media commons via law would just be going through the shattered wood.

It would also be a very real encroachment on free speech. And I'm referring to real free speech, as in free of government interference. Not the kind of free speech where someone must accommodate your speech.

 

[martybegan]

It would also be a very real encroachment on free speech. And I'm referring to real free speech, as in free of government interference. Not the kind of free speech where someone won't accommodate your speech.

It's needed to prevent one side from controlling public discourse.

Without Musk trying to do what he is doing we would be stuck with complaining and not getting anything accomplished.

 

[dblack]

It's needed to prevent one side from controlling public discourse.

It's needed because your side is losing?

Without Musk trying to do what he is doing we would be stuck with complaining and not getting anything accomplished.

Right. What Musk is doing is the proper solution. Asking the government force people to bend to your will, is not.

 

[Marener]

But they aren't "publishing" it. They claim it isn't their content so they don't get sued when someone says they are going to shoot up a piggly wiggly and then carries through on it.

Or someone posts kiddie porn.

The only time they "publish" something is when they speak AS Twitter, or AS Facebook, etc.

The content appears on their websites that they pay for.

Forcing them to put speech on those servers and send it out to people is a violation of their freedom of speech. The first amendment prohibits compelled speech.

 

[martybegan]

It's needed because your side is losing?

Right. What Musk is doing is the proper solution. Asking the government force people to bend to your will, is not.

We can't expect Musk types to be around every time.

If we lose this fight, we lose all fights. Enjoy your Gulag stay.

 

[martybegan]

The content appears on their websites that they pay for.

Forcing them to put speech on those servers and send it out to people is a violation of their freedom of speech. The first amendment prohibits compelled speech.

Twitter isn't technically a Website, it's a platform that has a website. 1996 called, it want's it's tech terms back.

They don't claim people's individual posts as their speech. Show me where they claim it is "their" speech.

 

[bodecea]

Maybe now they do, but I would support a law declaring the 1st amendment applies to certain social media.

And people were being banned for saying reality based things like "a man can't become a woman".

Just because you SJW snowflakes can't handle that.

Ironic post is Ironic.

 

[martybegan]

Ironic post is Ironic.

No Irony, have you ever seen me try to stop others from saying or posting anything?

 

[dblack]

We can't expect Musk types to be around every time.

There are many other options that don't require enlisting state coercion.

If we lose this fight, we lose all fights. Enjoy your Gulag stay.

OMG!!!! The culture wars are scary!!!!

Here - as long as you're freaking out, watch this:

 

[Marener]

Twitter isn't technically a Website, it's a platform that has a website. 1996 called, it want's it's tech terms back.

They don't claim people's individual posts as their speech. Show me where they claim it is "their" speech.

Word games won’t save you. You want to force Twitter to carry speech on its platform, that is compelling speech.

The first amendment already applies and prevents government from forcing to do things they don’t want.

 

[martybegan]

There are many other options that don't require enlisting state coercion.

OMG!!!! The culture wars are scary!!!!

Here - as long as you're freaking out, watch this:

Yeah, and all of them involve losing because your team isn't allowed on the playing field.

 

[martybegan]

Word games won’t save you. You want to force Twitter to carry speech on its platform, that is compelling speech.

The first amendment already applies and prevents government from forcing to do things they don’t want.

They don't claim any posts are their speech except the posts THEY make themselves.

If it isn't their speech, how does the 1st amendment apply?

If the 1st amendment doesn't apply, then it's just a case of regulation, something progs like you usually LOVE.

 

[dblack]

Yeah, and all of them involve losing because your team isn't allowed on the playing field.

I don't have a "team". The culture war is being fought by people who see the government as a tool to force their will on others. It's utterly anti-American.

 

[martybegan]

I don't have a "team". The culture war is being fought by people who see the government as a tool to force their will on others. It's utterly anti-American.

Most people on the right want to simply be left the hell alone, the left is the side of control now.

 

[Marener]

They don't claim any posts are their speech except the posts THEY make themselves.

If it isn't their speech, how does the 1st amendment apply?

If the 1st amendment doesn't apply, then it's just a case of regulation, something progs like you usually LOVE.

They’re participating in the speech.

 

[dblack]

Most people on the right want to simply be left the hell alone, the left is the side of control now.

Of course.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Odd, your ilk was all in with "Fuck you, bake that cake".....Pepperidge Farms remembers.

Of course Yelp has sided with the intolerant too.

No. I wasn't. Not at all. If the business doesn't want to bake a cake for a couple whose lifestyle doesn't fit their beliefs, I'm fine with that. The couple can and should go elsewhere. Point is, the business gets to make the decision in the end.
Same deal with this restaurant.

 

[Polishprince]

No. I wasn't. Not at all. If the business doesn't want to bake a cake for a couple whose lifestyle doesn't fit their beliefs, I'm fine with that. The couple can and should go elsewhere. Point is, the business gets to make the decision in the end.
Same deal with this restaurant.

True enough. But it was a low blow for the joint to wait to the last minute before canceling.

They didn't say anything on their website or in their ads about their revulsion to Normalcy after all.

 

[insolent imp]

True enough. But it was a low blow for the joint to wait to the last minute before canceling.

They didn't say anything on their website or in their ads about their revulsion to Normalcy after all.

couldn't a business just say no and leave it at that? do they owe an explanation?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. I wasn't. Not at all. If the business doesn't want to bake a cake for a couple whose lifestyle doesn't fit their beliefs, I'm fine with that. The couple can and should go elsewhere. Point is, the business gets to make the decision in the end.
Same deal with this restaurant.

There's a finer point to be made here.
A business reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. Sorta. Discrimination laws - right?
The case with the baker, etc, involves the fundamental right to, and the fundamental right to not, express a message.
The case with the restaurant does not.

And so you can still make the case the restaurant can refuse to serve anyone, its not the same argument as made with reference refusing to bake the cake.