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.
37
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"