I do not believe that some people should be treated more equally than others.
It is the argument that is still lawfully used to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation in much of the country; only a minority of states have public accommodation laws under which sexual orientation is a protected class.
The balance between the state interests involvee in public accommodation laws and the free speech and free association rights they limit is a source of endless debate. The fact that the public in some part of the country has decided that one axis has circumstances which warrant such a limitation is not enough to make the case that everyone must accept that the limitation is universally justified for some other axis.
> I do not believe that some people should be treated more equally than others.
Which can be an argument for internet companies not having their free speech rights limited in order to mandate that they relay political views they disagree with as easily as it can be an argument for that imposition.
> Which can be an argument for internet companies not having their free speech rights limited in order to mandate that they relay political views they disagree with as easily as it can be an argument for that imposition.
That argument seems in direct opposition to the argument that, e.g. Christian bakers and photographers should be required to provide services for gay weddings. If Google may not be mandated to relay political views that they disagree with, how can photographers be mandated to do so? Do multi-national megacorporations have more rights than individuals? Or is one political view simply wrong, and therefore acceptable to discriminate against?