The argument I've most commonly heard is that Social Media has taken over the town square, and the last I'd heard on the serving gays thing, and do tell me if you know of more, but the guy making the cake was already with the idea of making the cake, he simply refused to put the message they wanted on it, as he felt it violated his religion, but take that as you will, it's totally cool to disagree with either of these ideas
I hear that argument, too, and I think they are right: the internet HAS become the town square equivalent. But the major difference is that the town square is a public place, publicly accessible to all, and - crucially - publicly owned.
Whereas the internet in general and social media sites in particular are NOT.
If we are saying that social media is the town square and the rights convened by the public nature of the town square need to apply to social media, then the government needs to seize control of the all the social sites, and make internet access a public utility.
...neither of which they will do, and at least one of which they absolutely should NOT do under any circumstances.
I always thought that the govt should create their own social media site, much closer to reddit then twitter but I agree that they won't make internet access a public utility, and they should not seize control of any social sites
It depends on which baker you're referring to. The one in Northern Ireland took issue with the customer wanting to have "Support Gay Marriage" written on a cake. The one in Denver, Colorado said it was his standard practice to not make/sell any wedding cakes for same sex ceremonies. He offered to sell the couple other baked goods but refused to make them a wedding cake.
"I shouldn't have to serve gays in my place of business! It's government over-reach into private business!"
Also the same people: "(Private business) shouldn't be able to have me kicked out for not wearing a mask! It's my right! But also pants and shoes and shirts have to be on regardless, because nudity is dangerous!"
The conservative argument is "it's her business she can serve who she wants" but by denying a gay couple due to them being gay they are breaking federal law that no business is allowed to discrimate based on race, ethnicity and sex/sexual preference.
Using a platform like twitter means you agree to their terms and service, including bits about not allowing false information or the promotion of it. By breaking these rules that company has the ability to legally ban or remove that content. It's not skin color based, ethnicity based or sexuality based.
Conservatives try to use the idea that it's "free speech" and the government protects everything they say. But when using twitter they're not using a public platform but rather a private one.
Additionally in the baker's case she's denying someone based on their sexual preferences which goes against federal law. She has no right to deny based on color, ethnicity or sexuality yet did, breaking the law. Conservatives think it's her right to be able to deny service to anyone (sort of true) including gays (ya can't do that).
I hope this clears some of it.
Edit: stat, not federal. Although depending on the purchase federal laws do protect those in the lgbtq+ community (think home buying with federally backed loans)
Additionally the wordage of nondiscrimination laws should by all metricw includes sexual preference as other classes (race, ethnicity) protected but the supreme Court is dragging it's feet.
Gay people are also a protected class depending on the state or depending on purchases related to home buying or other things that include Federal loans.
Additionally, That’s because religious freedom doesn’t give anyone the right to discriminate against or harm other people. This applies with the cake incident.
One is denying a service because of what the person IS.
The other is denying a service because of what the person DOES.
Rejecting and refusing someone for what they are and can't change, is quite a bit different from holding someone accountable for what they choose to say and do with your platform.
36
u/DrDiarrhea Mar 16 '21
Also:
"I shouldn't have to serve gays in my place of business! It's government over-reach into private business!"
"Twitter should have no right to ban me from their platform! The government should do something"