[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.