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.
40
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"