[janlin1999]

For anyone who thinks that the parent comment refers to the Colorado baker case (https://apnews.com/article/130137ace2e8416aa207456827fae92b), note that the baker did not refuse gay customers per se, but refused to customize cakes that celebrated gay marriage: gay customers could still buy non-customized cakes.

For anyone who thinks the above is too minor of a distinction, a potentially worthwhile question to explore would be whether, for example, an African-American baker (who customizes cakes) should be allowed to deny a customer's request to celebrate religiously motivated white supremacy.

Personally, under current law, I think Apple and Google should be able to determine whether an app like Parler is allowed on their platforms, although I think that concentration of power (whether in a corporation or in a government) is generally not good for society. I also think that there should be some base level of services (e.g. ISP) that should be treated as a utility (e.g. we don't deny someone water service because of his bigoted opinions).

[pests]

There is a key factor in the cake case that does not exist in the app store case.

Creating a cake is a work of art that a person must put creativity into. You cannot force this person to create art.

They wouldn't be able to deny selling a premade/cookie-cutter/premade item.

[Corrado]

That's a very good point, and a distinction that I had not thought of before. Maybe it comes down to legality. Homosexuality is not illegal but is racism illegal? Even religiously motivated racism?

[fooey]

Race and sex are protected classes

Racists are not a protected class

[fitzie]

there is a legal and ethical argument. what constitutes a protected class should not be limited by legal obligations, but to a liberal democracy point of view. according to some recent polls liberals themselves report the most fear of their views being silenced, and these tech platforms should really think about what societal harm they are doing when nearly all dissent can be labeled as hate or racism and silenced. said another way, I'd like to understand exactly how were suppose to discuss sensitive issues l(for example immigration policy) when anything one side says is immediately labels racist.