I hear a lot of voices in these threads that would occupy the overlap of that Venn Diagram. The cognitive dissonance is really something.
For anyone who thinks the above is too minor of a distinction, a potentially worthwhile question to explore would be whether, for example, an African-American baker (who customizes cakes) should be allowed to deny a customer's request to celebrate religiously motivated white supremacy.
Personally, under current law, I think Apple and Google should be able to determine whether an app like Parler is allowed on their platforms, although I think that concentration of power (whether in a corporation or in a government) is generally not good for society. I also think that there should be some base level of services (e.g. ISP) that should be treated as a utility (e.g. we don't deny someone water service because of his bigoted opinions).
Creating a cake is a work of art that a person must put creativity into. You cannot force this person to create art.
They wouldn't be able to deny selling a premade/cookie-cutter/premade item.
Racists are not a protected class
Nearly everyone sees the world through the lens of their Party, and come up with all sorts of justifications afterwards.
Sounds very succinct and simple, but who draws the line? Can a bakery deny a customer who "acts gay"? That's an action, not a belief. Does voicing an opinion count as an action?
You still have to decide which actions are protected and which are ban-worthy.
judges, politicians, lawyers, cops and voters, just like everything else.
The baker could make rules against holding hands with someone of the same sex, or not speaking proper english. There could even be a strict "don't argue with the baker" rule, and the baker could sass and goad customers he didn't want into arguing with him so he can throw the customer out.
The entire controversy around what happened with Parler is the question of whether the rules the big tech platforms have are just, and evenly enforced. I have not seen anyone arguing against the concept of rules itself.
Now, the question of "even" enforcement is another matter, and I don't think I have enough knowledge or background to have an opinion on that.
People can have complex positions that don't neatly fit into a binary view of the world.
Complexity makes hypocrisy inevitable in that system, but that doesn't make it desirable. You'd like to think that somebody confronted with objective, straightforward, simple hypocrisies would be willing to seek a compromise. Often, it's the opposite.
Maybe that's too optimistic, but there it is.
Maybe that's too pessimistic, but there it is. Paradoxically, I hope you're right.
Essentially they get many of the benefits of being a common carrier, but without being a common carrier and having the associated obligations.
That's the difference between Big Tech and bakeries. Big Tech could literally object to all LGBT content on their platform and because of Section 230, your case would be dismissed.
Bakeries don't have anywhere near the amount of freedom as Big Tech enjoys from Section 230.
I don't see how Section 230 is relevant there at all. Section 230 is about content that appears on your site, not content that does not appear on your site.
It bothers me when people bring this up about SCOTUS appointments. “Mitch McConnell said Merrick Garland can’t be voted on because it is an election year then did the same with ACB weeks before an election. What a hypocrite!”
The right has cared about one thing above all else for the past decade: put conservative judges on the bench; as many as they can, as fast as possible. There’s no “dissonance”. They know exactly what they care about, what they’re doing, and why.
It’s the same thing here. People don’t go by frameworks. They backfill justifications for their feelings. If those justifications overlap in weird ways, it’s just that they’re bad at consistently translating those justifications. The feelings are the same and not contradictory.