Saying “good” here is like saying it was good for a baker to refuse making a custom cake for a gay wedding. Just because they have the right to do it does not mean it’s a good thing.
That’s why it’s generally a good idea to only ban speech which is threatening direct violence, or inciting violence, or other very specific things. “Ban fascists” is too broad.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...
If you can't understand why I'd imagine you're going to spend a lot of your life being extremely confused, angry and frustrated.
If the baker thinks it's a message of sin, then what? It's not like selling them a room at a hotel or any other standard thing. This is a custom crafted item and message that they are being asked to help propagate, and one that they disagree with.
The fact you're equating the two is actually disturbing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...
You can’t both-sides this one.
Are we talking left-wing threats on Twitter or right-wing threats on Parler?
This isn't the case at the federal level, which is why the "gay wedding cake" event could be settled in favor of the bakers. It's currently up to individual states to determine whether sexual orientation, etc. is a protected class.
"U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information. [...] Although it is not required by federal law, state law and employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation."
I'm sorry if I weren't clear. That was my personal reaction and my personal opinion, not an objective evaluation of the situation (since I'm pretty sure it's not "good" for anyone working at Parlor lol).
But considering the kind of damage those people are doing to the society and I just happen to live in the exact same society, yeah, in my very humble opinion they can royally go get fucked.
We oppose discrimination against protected classes because generally we recognize that people cannot elect into or opt out easily of those classes. It’s generally greed upon that people do not choose to be gay.
Parler’s users choose to post white supremacist content.
I see no contradiction in insisting that gay people be served under the law while advocating that private companies retain their right to refuse service to White supremacists.
The Supreme Court has backed this up: discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes sexuality, is illegal, while discrimination on the basis of political ideology is not.
Also political views can not be changed easily either, it requires exposure to facts during a long time in a way that would circumvent brain's desire to be right.
But more importantly the right of companies to refuse service as a substitution to real justice is not going to fix society, it will only make things worse when bad guys get the power. Justice requires rules, not arbitrary actions by private companies.