So if a social network, which is world wide, has the 'right' to censor, or say what they want.

Why does the; "Supreme Court hears case of Colorado wedding website refusing gay marriage work".

   "... The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving a Colorado web design company whose desire to avoid doing work for same-sex weddings runs afoul of the state’s anti-discrimination law..."

So complaining that private companies aren't supporting a religion/belief position is, or is not the same as ?

"...Complaining that private companies aren't supporting the politician you like is pointless..."

So it is, or is it not required to change constitutional law to protect a Baker's rights ?

"...Until Constitutional law changes, or alterations are made to the 1st Amendment, these private companies do not have to protect your rights..."

So no one should complain about a Baker, doing what they think is correct ?

"...Or keep complaining that Twitter doesn't do what we think they should with their property..."


So a social media platform can 'do what they want'.
Yet a Baker can not.

Looks like some social medias can be as racist, as it want's, as long as the 'racist/predigest/one side political opinion', is controlled by UL, DFI FDS Socialists.  


"...Again Twitter isn't a public free speech platform (even if they claim it is) that has 1st Amendment protection responsibilities, it is a private platform ..."

 A Logic Nazi would understand the difference between discrimination and freedom of speech, and who is being sued for what.

 Twitter has no obligation to protect your 1st amendment rights.  The baker was not sued for 1st Amendment violations.  The baker is the one who's 1st Amendment rights are being restricted.

Eegore wrote on 12/06/22 at 11:06:09:

Can one explain, the difference from a Baker, exercising ‘free speech’, Saying, up front, who they will serve and why.

And a Local media site, who say/imply they are totally fair, discriminating, by only allowing one political view.

“…You can’t deny someone access to a product or service based on who they are…”

Yet if a person denying assess, is a UL Socialist,
banning a Conservative, is perfectly OK ?

Eegore wrote on 12/06/22 at 11:06:09:



It's almost as if the government,having an obligation to Not screw me, asks someone else to screw me. That is what I see.
Just THANKS BE TO GAAAWD that you're here and able to explain the legalities, which I remember typing in the first place. But you can type it out some more. Just keep pretending it was all
Gee,Mr government, please Hayulp Us protect the public!! That was Not what they were doing.

I'm going to wait for E to explain that to you.

It's almost as if the government,having an obligation to Not screw me, asks someone else to screw me. That is what I see.
Just THANKS BE TO GAAAWD that you're here and able to explain the legalities, which I remember typing in the first place. But you can type it out some more. Just keep pretending it was all
Gee,Mr government, please Hayulp Us protect the public!! That was Not what they were doing.


 Sure, so go sue the Government for infringing on your 1st Amendment rights.  Stop saying Twitter has to let you use their platform.  You have no rights to use their property no matter how much they misuse it.  They have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights.

 MnSpring started this thread by freely mixing Free Speech and Religions Freedom using my posts as if they are the same Constitutional protections.  A Logic Nazi would be able to see that the only way Free Speech applies to Twitter is if you have a right to use it.

 The Baker is exercising his Religious Freedom.  Twitter is not responsible for your Free Speech.  Mixing the two because they are both private companies that both opened their doors to the public doesn't change how the law applies to the 1st Amendment.

The GOVERNMENT USING them is the problem.

 I agree.

 Which is why the issue is with the Government if we are going to apply "free speech" as MnSpring brought up.  Not Twitter and not Bakers since both of them have no obligation to protect our 1st Amendment rights, no matter how many times he wants to try to make it sound like Twitter gets special privileges and a baker does not.

 They aren't even the same legal issue.