Now with the Colorado ruling saying that religion can override public accommodation laws

[RetiredGySgt]

I didn’t say it, the other poster did.

So you defend the right of Twitter to kick Trump off, right?

Not while protected by federal law from lawsuits I dont.

 

[Marener]

Why is that important?

It demonstrates that conservatives have double standards.

 

[dblack]

Yes, we use the Constitution. You trash pass a state law and try to convince everyone that it trumps the Constitution. Funny.

You're a very ignorant little person. You should find someone to read (and explain) the Constitution to you.

Then you can come back and apologize.

 

[SavannahMann]

y'all watch....Lefties will discriminate in their businesses...(they already are). The right will NOT do that.

You think the woman who filed the suit was a Leftist?

 

[dblack]

It demonstrates that conservatives have double standards.

You're assuming they have standards.

 

[Care4all]

What is a wedding site? Videos were in infancy when I first got married and computers were no where to be found but in huge government air conditioned rooms with IBM written all over them....

So, what is creating a wedding site for someone?

Are they taking client's videos and pictures of their wedding taken by the clients and grouping them in to chronicle sections (links)?

Like, pre wedding, to walking down aisle, to wedding ceremony, vows, throwing the bouquet, first dance, cutting cake etc????

 

[hadit]

The law says otherwise.

But also Texas and Florida have both passed laws that make it illegal to kick people off social media in some form.

Those laws are clearly unconstitutional.

That will likely end up at the SC, where it will finally be settled whether social media is platform or publisher. Right now, they're trying to be both at the same time, which leads to the current situation. They want to be shielded from liability for content but want to control content at the same time.

 

[Marener]

You're assuming they have standards.

They do, but not ones they’ll admit to.

Christian’s can do whatever they want. The rest of us can’t.

 

[dblack]

What is a wedding site? Videos were in infancy when I first got married and computers were no where to be found but in huge government air conditioned rooms with IBM written all over them....

So, what is creating a wedding site for someone?

Are they taking client's videos and pictures of their wedding taken by the clients and grouping them in to chronicle sections (links)?

Like, pre wedding, to walking down aisle, to wedding ceremony, vows, throwing the bouquet, first dance, cutting cake etc????

Depends on the site. Some of them manage guest lists, offer a gift registry, or a message board for attendees - the whole shebang.

Why does it matter? What's your angle?

 

[dblack]

That will likely end up at the SC, where it will finally be settled whether social media is platform or publisher. Right now, they're trying to be both at the same time, which leads to the current situation. They want to be shielded from liability for content but want to control content at the same time.

The main thing is, partisan statists need control of social medai. So they can win the culture war!

 

[Marener]

That will likely end up at the SC, where it will finally be settled whether social media is platform or publisher. Right now, they're trying to be both at the same time, which leads to the current situation. They want to be shielded from liability for content but want to control content at the same time.

That has absolutely nothing to do with either the Florida or the Texas law. This seems like a canned response rather than critical thinking.

The Texas law makes it illegal to kick people off social media websites based on content. The fifth circuit hacks said that that social media websites don’t have first amendment rights that would protect them from compelled speech.

That is directly contradicted by this ruling.

 

[Care4all]

Depends on the site. Some of them manage guest lists, offer a gift registry, or a message board for attendees - the whole shebang.

Why does it matter? What's your angle?

I was just wondering where or how the business uses their personal (expressive) creativity?

 

[scruffy]

No its not her right.
What is it about a gay wedding web site that would be remotely offensive to anyone?
Nothing.
No one has the right to refuse to manufacture anything Christian.

Actually we are a democracy republic, which means a constitution that prohibits abuse of the rights of others.

No, no, and no.

We are a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic, which means my rights are as important as yours.

We ask our Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in cases of CONFLICT OF RIGHTS, like this one.

 

[hadit]

That has absolutely nothing to do with either the Florida or the Texas law. This seems like a canned response rather than critical thinking.

The Texas law makes it illegal to kick people off social media websites based on content. The fifth circuit hacks said that that social media websites don’t have first amendment rights that would protect them from compelled speech.

That is directly contradicted by this ruling.

Kicking people off social media for content is not compelling speech, it's censuring speech. Forcing everyone who posted on a social media platform to put something about Islam in their signature block, for example, would be compelled speech.

 

[Unkotare]

They do, but not ones they’ll admit to.

Christian’s can do whatever they want. The rest of us can’t.

???

 

[hadit]

I was just wondering where or how the business uses their personal (expressive) creativity?

In the custom design of the site. If they meet with the bride and groom, discuss the backgrounds, the decorations, the placement of images, even the fonts used, are all creative.

 

[scruffy]

The "Constitutional" part is fairly irrelevant.
If there were no Constitution, then it would have been harder to get the states to sign on, but not impossible.
You do not need a constitution, and not all republics have one.
The form could be fined later as legislation.
But you DO need democracy in order to pick representatives who reflect popular public opinion.

A Constitution is a codification of the AGREED UPON rules, which everyone is expected to adhere to.

 

[scruffy]

So then you agree that a Muslim deli owner should be able to refuse to serve infidels (aka white people) in accordance with his religion?

Did you ever ask a Muslim deli owner for pig's feet?

 

[Marener]

Kicking people off social media for content is not compelling speech, it's censuring speech. Forcing everyone who posted on a social media platform to put something about Islam in their signature block, for example, would be compelled speech.

A law that forbids a social media website from kicking people off due to content (which is what the Texas law does) is compelling speech from the social media platform.

Only the government can compel speech. A social media platform cannot since your participation on the website is voluntary.

 

[BS Filter]

Don’t forget Trump sued Twitter to try to get himself back on there.

Yep. So?