[empath75]

So you demand that these private corporations need to do business with someone they find contemptible? Nobody is putting him in jail. He’s free to speak his noxious views. And other people are not obligated to publish or advertise on them.

[bdcravens]

As long as it's not a wedding cake, right?

[code_duck]

Yeah, you have to not violate federal law, which is the same reason people who sell glass pipes get banned from PayPal.

[woodruffw]

I think there's a substantial moral difference between (1) a business discriminating against members of a sexual minority, and (2) a business discriminating against a dogwhistling conspiracy theorist.

[bdcravens]

I agree. I also would say that allowing a company to make decisions based on moral relativism is an even more slippery slope than we're already on.

[woodruffw]

Where's the relativism?

[sheepmullet]

> I think there's a substantial moral difference between

Yes, a moral difference clearly in favor of the conspiracy theorist.

1) A cake is not as important as speech.

2) The gay couple had many other alternative options.

3) There was no shadowy group working to ensure that nobody would bake a cake for the gay couple.

There is a clear group setting out to unperson Alex Jones.

[camel_Snake]

I don't feel like you're arguing in good faith here.

The issue wasn't what they were purchasing but rather the reason they were refused service - their sexuality. If Alex Jones had been deplatformed because he was gay then you can bet you're ass we'd be mad. If the couple was denied service because they were known to say controversial things in public and the bakery didn't want to be associated with that I'd have no issue with that either.

By 'free speech' I assume you mean the universal idea that we should be able to express ourselves rather than protection from the government. I'm going to presume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you also believe businesses 'are people too' and should have analogous rights. What about the business' "freedom of speech"?

[sheepmullet]

> The issue wasn't what they were purchasing but rather the reason they were refused service

I’m saying the what is far more important in this case than the why.

Speech is a fundamental freedom and getting a baker to make you a wedding cake is not.

> What about the business' "freedom of speech"?

PayPal is free to say they don’t like Alex Jones.

Facebook is free to put out a notification telling people Alex Jones is a liar.

I’m guessing you are really asking about freedom of association?

Provided there are clear alternatives then I don’t normally have a problem with a private company deciding who they want to do business with.

But that’s not the case here with social media or with credit card payment processing.

If there were thousands of alternatives available then it wouldn’t matter.

Instead there are only a handful of major corporations that control the respective markets and they appear to be colluding to deplatform Alex Jones.

[orf]

Are you saying spreading hate speech a protected class now?

[andybak]

Whilst I probably would find no common ground with the person you're responding to (I'm pro-lgbtq in general and always have been) I do think there's a nuance here worth engaging with.

[bdcravens]

Didn't say that at all. Only addressing this statement: "So you demand that these private corporations need to do business with someone they find contemptible?"

[noelsusman]

You can try to make the argument that Alex Jones should belong to a protected class that needs special rules that infringe on other people's freedoms, but I don't think you'll win that argument.

[behringer]

Conspiracy theorists who torment the suffering are not a protected class. Since when are payment processors not free to choose the types of businesses they support?

[jdoliner]

Neither were the gay couple that were refused the wedding cake (in the instance of the wedding cake), that's why the supreme court ruled against them.

[toofy]

But this isn't what the Supreme Court rules at all. It ruled that in handling the case, the Colorado commission had been biased against the defendant; the ruling specifically stated that Colorado "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services... the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion"

The ruling was also very specific in that the case was not to set precedent and the ruling absolutely does not permit businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ.

[woofyman]

In Colorado they were a protected class.

[jdoliner]

Which the supreme court overturned, ruling it unconstitutional.

[noelsusman]

No, they didn't. Their ruling rested largely on how hostile the Colorado administrative agency acted in that particular case. They made no ruling on the larger questions, which is how they got Kagan and Breyer on board with the majority opinion.

[daveFNbuck]

That's not true. They ruled that the baker got a mulligan because government officials didn't show enough respect to his religious beliefs. It is still illegal and there's another case against him right now over this behavior.

[toofy]

No, it absolutely did not overturn protected status of LGBTQ. To quote Justice Kennedy, Colorado "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services... the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion".