"...Not Twitter and not Bakers since both of them have no obligation to protect our 1st Amendment rights..."

So, if a small Baker says:  'They Believe in ... ... ...', they CAN. be sued ?

Yet a huge Social Media that, 'clams' it is the voice of all, Can say,  'They Believe in ... ... ...' they cannot ?

(Yes ANYBODY can sue anybody for anything, know that. and you know that is not the issue here. Don't deflect.)

Maybe this helps:

 Baker + Customer + Discrimination = Religion defense.  (No Free-speech)

 Twitter + Customer + Free Speech violation = No Free Speech protections.  (No Religion or Discrimination)

 Are you asking why one side won, at first and the others did not?  Like how the Baker lost the case initially and Twitter was not charged?  For two totally different crimes?


 A Baker/s said/says:  'They Believe in ... ... ...', they are sued and that is backed by the government ?

 The lawsuit is not "backed by" the Government beyond the fact that "DISCRIMINATION" is the law the private parties used to sue the Baker and US Courts are not run by private companies.  



A huge Social Media that, 'clams' it is the equal/fair voice of all, and  says:  'They Believe in ... ... ...',, And is Proven they Censor with the help from the government. Are held harmless, and some defend their actions.

 Twitter has no obligation to protect your "Free Speech" protections.  They are NOT using Religious Freedom in their defense.  Go sue the FBI.

 Apples and Oranges.


 You are using the phrase "They Believe in ... ... ..." in two completely different forms of context.

"I believe in Christianity, I am a Christian."  - (Baker)

 is Different than

"I believe I own my property, I can use it."  - (Twitter)


 One is a protected right, the other is not.  The Baker was sued for discrimination.  He has a Religious protection to defend that.

 Twitter is accused of violating "Free Speech" protections, they do not have a responsibility to protect your 1st Amendment rights.  You have no right to use Twitter.

Twitter does own it's own property, and they can use it.
Just that they TOTALLY LIED about how they used it.


 That's a false advertising issue.  Not a 1st Amendment issue.  Sue them for the right crime.  Don't pretend Twitter's corporate belief structure is equal to Religion and that they are exercising some Constitutional protection.  They aren't.

 The Baker was sued by private parties for discrimination.  The Baker used Religious protections in his defense.  None of this applies to Twitter until somebody sues Twitter for discrimination.

 If the private parties sued the Baker for violating their 1st Amendment rights then I would be saying the exact same thing I do about Twitter.  Wrong crime - the Baker has no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights.