If a business wants to deny service to a gay person, that is their right

>If a business wants to deny service to a gay person, that is their right

>I should be free to ban black people from my neighborhood

>A private corporation won't allow us to use their platform? That's Stalinism!

Please explain, Sup Forums.

1. How exactly are you going to enforce banning of black people in the hood.

2. It's a private corporation.

3. memes

>A private corporation won't allow us to use their platform? That's Stalinism!
what?

What's the difference between a private company like a cake shop not providing services to a gay person and a private company like Twitter banning the alt-right?

I'm genuinely curious for an answer.

He's talking about twitter banning people who are alt-right

it's not wrong, it's just dishonest

How?

Yeah it's different when someone is oppressing ME.

Flip your argument around and it's still hypocrisy.

Only one of those is legal.

Make all three legal and I agree.

gays and blacks aren't human, they have no rights

Denying service to someone because their identity and orientation is wrong. They can't help they are the way they are. Just give them their service and they will give you money. It's not a big deal

No you dumbfuck

Its called freedom of association and without it there is no real freedom or ownership.

>If a business wants to deny service to a gay person, that is their right
Yes, it should be.

>I should be free to ban black people from my neighborhood
Not unless the entire neighborhood agrees to it.

>A private corporation won't allow us to use their platform? That's Stalinism!
It's not Stalinism. It IS censorship - censorship doesn't necessarily have to be done by the government. You can censor yourself, for fuck's sake.

I'm assuming the first point and last point are about the "inconsistency" in the belief of private companies being able to choose their clientele - e.g. bakeries not baking cakes for gay weddings VS Twitter banning "alt right" accounts.

There are big differences at play here. First of all being that Twitter promotes themselves as being a "free speech platform" and that it is a place where you can express your beliefs, but that is obviously untrue. There is also the issue that Twitter basically has a monopoly on its service, whereas if a Christian bakery refuses to serve your gay wedding, even in small towns there will be other bakeries plenty happy to take your money. Furthermore, a private owner of a private bakery refusing to cater to a gay wedding is an issue of religious rights - mainly the right to disassociate, just as you can't go in to a Jewish or Muslim bakery and get pissed if they refuse to make you a cheese & bacon roll. Twitter banning "alt right" accounts is not about freedom of religion, it's about silencing different political views to your own.

Then again, modern Leftism has basically become a religion (or more accurately, cult) so I guess it is more similar than I thought.

I agree, what I'm asking is why isn't it okay when it's us?

Twitter is a corporation, which are afforded more rights than people in our country. Cake store is a cake store

So disassociation is only okay when the intent is religious? I'm still not getting it because both examples are privately owned businesses, monopoly or not.

>hurrr it's different because it applies to me

None of us should even be using Twatter anyway. Let them do what they want with their safe space.

But Twitter is still a platform that's privately owned, so technically they, along with Facebook should be allowed to decide who can and can't use their services, just like the cake shop.

Sage

First amendment protects religious expression. Thus you should not be forced to provide a service that is against those religious beliefs.

The argument isn't so much that Twitter isn't allowed to ban "alt right" accounts, but that they promote themselves as supporters of free speech, which clearly they do not. They're hypocrites. Hell, you could make a case that it's false advertising.

I sure as shit don't use Twitter, but for whatever reason it seems pretty mandatory to have one for journalists or other public figures.

>hurrr it's different because it applies to me
I never said that.

Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, 99.99% of sites: You aren't allowed to discuss this, b&

Sup Forums: You are allowed to discuss this

Facebook, Reddit, Leftypol: HURR STOP BEING AN ECHO CHAMBER GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND ILL BEAT YOUNIN AN ARGUMENT

Explain, normie.

>but that they promote themselves as supporters of free speech, which clearly they do not

Supporting freedom of speech doesn't mean allowing everyone a platform.
I could own a business and support a freedom of speech, doesn't mean I have to let someone rant about 'the goddamn jews running the fucking world REEEE' in the middle of my place.

I support youtube's right to censor. I support even more somebody's attempt to compete against youtube.

(((liveleak))) is a shit

>I never said that.

>There are big differences at play here.

There's no difference. Twatter is a private business and they can conduct their business however they wish. You can bitch and moan all you like about their being hypocrites, well no shit, of course they are and so is just about every other company who advertises.

And I support an user's right to troll youtube and increase awareness on other platforms.

btw you're comparing socio-peer pressure with personal choice.

>take your request elsewhere, I don't serve gays ( met with scrutiny )
>take your bigotry elsewhere, these people don't like hour opinion ( met with praise ).

It's a matter of scale. If wal-mart decided it didn't want to serve gays, then that would be kinda bullshit because wal-mart killed off mom and pop's shops so in many places wal-mart is the only option. And starving someone because they like cock up the bum is a bit off. Similarly, so many people no longer watch/read news and so get it all from kikebook/twitter. And since we don't really want people to be thoughtless drones who believe whatever the jews tell them to, actually reaching people with our free speech requires access to platforms like twitter.

Because it's a platform that's meant to appeal to everyone, not just people who have an opinion that aligns with theirs.

I have no problem with this though, since I get my catharsis from this website and use almost no social media.

But in the long run this is going to be a great negative impact for their company

It sounds like you want to be part of a circlejerk. Explain

3. If they claim they're a platform for free speech, then they can obviously be criticized for censorship.

Because they set out clear rules of what is and isn't allowed in their terms of service. They then go and ban accounts that did nothing to break their terms simply because they have right-wing opinions and not ban accounts that do break their rules because they have left wing opinions. Would anybody get mad if a liberal got banned from ironmarch or trs? No because they have a clearly stated ideology in their terms of service. It's dishonest because you can't claim to be for free speech in public and be against it in private

It wasn't us who denied the cake, but we support their right to and support the right for a gay cake only business to exist.

It was however 'they' who demanded someone else bake a cake, delete the post and cave to 'their' feelings with no options left.

I bet when you made this thread you didn't realize the argument you made was x3 worse on their end.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

So their argument aside, you're at least acknowledging that our argument against it is pretty shit?

>>A private corporation won't allow us to use their platform? That's Stalinism!

They have to have it one way or the other, retard.

It isn't.
"We support free speech bu-"

DROPPED, and exposing shit is more important than business decisions anyways.

>create law denying the denial of service
>create law denying censorship

:y, oops one already exists.

It's not censorship you moron, it's a denial of service. The service being posting on a fucking social media platform. Is refusing to write "I'm a fucking cuck" on a cake censorship?

>Because it's a platform that's meant to appeal to everyone, not just people who have an opinion that aligns with theirs.

this logic is literally "muh feelings".

conservacucks confirmed for girly tumblrinas.

While they aren't a government service, you can't say you're for free speech and then enact things that are its opposite.

Yeah they can.

They're lying, but they can.

Just because they're being hypocrites with their beliefs doesn't mean we should.