[zaksoup]

I see this comparison a lot and I want to point out exactly why it’s false:

We oppose discrimination against protected classes because generally we recognize that people cannot elect into or opt out easily of those classes. It’s generally greed upon that people do not choose to be gay.

Parler’s users choose to post white supremacist content.

I see no contradiction in insisting that gay people be served under the law while advocating that private companies retain their right to refuse service to White supremacists.

The Supreme Court has backed this up: discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes sexuality, is illegal, while discrimination on the basis of political ideology is not.

[chr1]

This is not a good argument, as it implies that if science finds a way to change sexual preference then the protection should be revoked.

Also political views can not be changed easily either, it requires exposure to facts during a long time in a way that would circumvent brain's desire to be right.

But more importantly the right of companies to refuse service as a substitution to real justice is not going to fix society, it will only make things worse when bad guys get the power. Justice requires rules, not arbitrary actions by private companies.

[throwaway201103]

So the baker can refuse to bake cakes for Democrats?

[quickthrowman]

Yes, Democrats are not a protected class. Political party membership in the US is voluntary.