[throwawayacc2]

The false equivalence is you comparing a business relationship to an interpersonal relationship between two people in real life.

Do you believe stores should be allowed to ban black people from shopping there? Do you believe pharmacies should be allowed to deny medication to jewish people? Perhaps you believe bakeries should not have to sell cakes to gay people?

Are these groups not “owed a literal service at their own expense because... principles”?

To me it seems you’re the one painting yourself a bizarre rhetorical corner. You can’t have it both ways. If we agreed as a society businesses should not discriminate, then they should not discriminate.

So to answer the question you should asked, yes, I honestly believe that nobody should have consequences for any actions outside of the literal legal system when dealing with a business. Business relationships are not the same as interpersonal relationships.

And to answer this one too:

> What, specifically, is the protected class you think Kiwi Farms is a part of?

People who think differently from you.

[tga_d]

I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or don't realize the argument you're making, but the comparison I was making was to be analagous to yours -- you made an interpersonal analogy, so I followed in kind. My analogy doesn't change significantly at all when brought into business relationships: if a customer in a cafe and starts shouting death threats at other customers, you honestly believe the proprietor has no standing to kick them out without bringing a lawsuit or law enforcement? Do you think bouncers at night clubs and "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs are also discrimination?

> People who think differently from you.

The issue at hand is not that they "think differently" than me, it's that they did terrible things to innocent people. The mere virtue of them having a different opinion from me doesn't mean they're suddenly off limits for repercussions, again, that's assinine, and nobody reasonable thinks the only time there should be consequences for anything is when they're legal consequences.

[throwawayacc2]

I think you’re the one being obtuse. That or you are profoundly ignorant and accepted the mainstream narrative uncritically. Kiwfarms was not driven off the internet because “they did terrible things to innocent people”. The did not. The equivalence with a customer shouting death threats or a no shirt no entry sign is false.

A hate campaign was launched against a minority group wielding no societal power by a socially dominant group backed by governments and corporations alike. A group of people with institutional power used their power, influence and privilege to harass and silence a powerless minority. Because they think different to them. This is why Kiwifarms is no longer on the internet.

A better comparison with what happened is, at some point in the past before civil rights were implemented, a white man overhears a black man talking. The white man doesn’t like what the black man is saying, so he says “that black man there is a murderer!”. So the black man is arrested and executed. And you, a passerby, take the word of the white man and begin telling everyone “oh that black guy was a vicious murderer”.

In any case, I have no further wish to engage. I have expressed my thoughts on the matter. I’ll leave you with an echo of my original post. When you’ll find yourself outside the cathedral, just tell your self “nobody reasonable thinks the only time there should be consequences for anything is when they're legal consequences”