Coronavirus (political)

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by mooby

The key part of your sentence is in bold above.

This is no different than a Christian bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.

When you sign up to use their platform, you agree to use it by their rules. If it was a government office putting limits on Trump's free speech, then we'd have an issue.

Its a bit for complicated imo.

A bakery or a hotel is "open to the public" and under interstate commerce clause and civil rights laws, a store "open to the general public" cannot discriminate or deny service based on race, religion, gender etc. A bakery open to the public is clearly subject to federal laws and regulations regarding constitutional rights. (whether "sexual identity" is a protected class is up for debate and how that parlays with religious freedom is the difficult issue with the bakery cases)

Twitter - what the hell is it? Its obviously not a brick and mortar motel in Florida. Perhaps it could be regulated if it is considered a publicly necessary utility like railroads were back in the day or like energy or water etc.

Just a few years ago, the FCC labeled the "internet" as a public utility and thus subject to federal regulations. Without reading up on it, i think they really wanted to regulate the wires/towers etc i.e. the ability to provide internet.

I just dont see how "twitter" can be considered a public utility. Posting your thoughts arent vital and necessary to society. There are many other platforms to post your thoughts so its not like this is a monopoly as compared to Cox/verizon owning all the fiber cables in a certain part of the country.

----------------------

Twitter can do what ever it wants and thinks is in the best interest of its company and shareholders, imo.

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Its a bit for complicated imo.

A bakery or a hotel is "open to the public" and under interstate commerce clause and civil rights laws, a store "open to the general public" cannot discriminate or deny service based on race, religion, gender etc. A bakery open to the public is clearly subject to federal laws and regulations regarding constitutional rights. (whether "sexual identity" is a protected class is up for debate and how that parlays with religious freedom is the difficult issue with the bakery cases)

.

I agree with the Christian bakery because it was a custom specialty item. I also believe the gay couple singled them out, knowing full well they would be denied.

When I lived in California I had a lesbian couple who were close friends. They pretty much knew what local businesses were owned by gay people. I am sure that gay couple in Colorado could have easily found a gay friendly bakery.

I personally refused someone service based on their beliefs a couple decades ago in California. A guy handed me a concept drawing of a custom truck grille ornament. He asked how much to make him one. It wasn't hard to notice it had a pair of swastikas on it. My response to him wasn't pleasant.

They way I look at it I did the same thing as the Christian bakery. I refused to make someone a specialty item, because I disagreed with their beliefs. Of course I don't think any court in the land would award damages to a Nazi.