[ramblerman]

You are completely misunderstanding his point.

He is saying why is it OK for a small business to be forced to accommodate something that may be against their belief system. But the biggest corporations, who are also managing our online discourse, can pick and choose what they like.

[codemusings]

But he's insinuating that people like Alex Jones should be protected by freedom of speech as if their fucked up ideads are some sort of alternative view that's just not for everyone.

This is a form of gaslighting that tries to establish credibility for extremists that they don't have.

[beaconstudios]

> But he's insinuating that people like Alex Jones should be protected by freedom of speech as if their fucked up ideads are some sort of alternative view that's just not for everyone.

That is the case. In my opinion he's a hilarious nutcase, but just because you find his views offensive does not mean his speech is now illegitimate. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow the airing of controversial opinions, even if that means you end up with professional trolls calling tragedies a hoax. Any time you make a "freedom of speech doesn't apply to opinion X" argument, you are actively arguing against freedom of speech.

> This is a form of gaslighting that tries to establish credibility for extremists that they don't have.

What does this even mean? Having a different opinion is not gaslighting and to suggest that it is, is to trivialise a form of psychological abuse.

[DanBC]

> can pick and choose what they like.

No, these big businesses cannot say "no tweets about gay weddings".