The First Amendment is useless.

[XponentialChaos]

Links do not make things real or not.
The basis of understanding law is not going to be found in links, partially because it is an abstraction not universally agreed upon, but also because lawyers, legislators, politicians, etc., work hard at pretending that laws instead is whatever arbitrary edict they want to impose.

Go back to the Founders.
They explain it fairly well.
They were faced with legislation from the current government in England, they felt was inherently unfair, like "taxation without representation".
They concluded then that what is legal actually depends on ethics, basic legal principles, like the defense of inherent rights of individuals, etc., and NOT on arbitrary legislation or government edicts.

So when you look at what discrimination, it is the deliberate harming of the inherent rights of someone else, (their rights being life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.)
That then by definition is obviously inherently illegal.
The only exception would be if the discrimination was somehow necessary in order to enhance or protect the rights of an even larger group, like a strike, protest, etc.

Neat.

Why are you saying this NOW in response to a post of mine that was over a year and a half ago?

 

[Rigby5]

of course they can,, you wouldnt force them to do something they dont want to would you??

Of course I would force shop keepers to do something they do not "want" to do when it causes then no harm to do it and it would cause harm to others if the shop keeper were allowed to not do it just because he decided he did not "want" to do it.

You seem unable to differentiate between mere desires and actual harm.

 

[Rigby5]

you use enforced when it should be FORCED,,
you fascist sure like using force,,
at some point people will fight back and you wont like what we point at you,,

Wrong.
When you make the rule of law ahead of time, before the particular individuals in a case are yet known, then those generic principles are "enforced" equally.
That is not the same as just arbitrarily using "force" because everyone agree to the generic principles of Blind Justice ahead of time.

 

[g5000]

Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech.

Unless they are the governor of Florida and Disney says something they don't like.

 

[Rigby5]

wow...

Well, I think we'll just have to agree that you're nuts and have no respect for human dignity.

Wrong.
All political beliefs people hold are no up to anyone else to punish, even if they are wrong.
All you have a right to do is prevent their wrong ideas from being implemented.
Any one trying to shun a Nazi in a business open to the public, is worse than a Nazi.

 

[Rigby5]

I guess you would force parents to hire convicted pedophiles as baby sitters,, or would it be OK to discriminate against them??

You have totally reversed the example.
We were talking about refusing services, not who you decided to hire.
And it obviously also has to be illegal to refuse service to convicted pedophiles.

 

[Rigby5]

Neat.

Why are you saying this NOW in response to a post of mine that was over a year and a half ago?

Because I have more time now. I am usually too busy to write that much.

 

[dblack]

You have totally reversed the example.
We were talking about refusing services, not who you decided to hire.

It's the same principle.

And it obviously also has to be illegal to refuse service to convicted pedophiles.

Again - you're insane. You want government forcing Jews to accommodate Nazis, forcing parents to hire pedophiles. Fuck off.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Because I have more time now. I am usually too busy to write that much.

It took you over a year and a half to respond because you didn’t have time?

Cool. I’ll think of a reply and get back to you within 2 years. I’m busy.

 

[progressive hunter]

Of course I would force shop keepers to do something they do not "want" to do when it causes then no harm to do it and it would cause harm to others if the shop keeper were allowed to not do it just because he decided he did not "want" to do it.

You seem unable to differentiate between mere desires and actual harm.

who are you to decide what harms them???

I wonder if youre willing to hold the gun and shoot them if they resist?? my guess is youre to much a coward to do it yourself,,

 

[progressive hunter]

You have totally reversed the example.
We were talking about refusing services, not who you decided to hire.
And it obviously also has to be illegal to refuse service to convicted pedophiles.

youre just mad I used your standards against you,,

 

[dblack]

who are you to decide what harms them???

I wonder if youre willing to hold the gun and shoot them if they resist?? my guess is youre to much a coward to do it yourself,,

Well, ya see... Not giving someone a loan, is the same as attempted murder. Just like not baking them a cake.

Which means he sees murder as no worse than not giving someone a loan, or not baking them a cake. It's kind of scary that there are people out there who think like that.

 

[Richard-H]

Individual web sites are private carriers and can put up whatever they want.
But then are liable for whatever they put up, and can get sued over content.

Common carriers like Twitter, FaceBook, LinkedIn, etc., are immune to lawsuits over content, do not create content and just facilitate it, just follow FCC regulations, and can not legally discriminate unless it violates FCC regulation on deliberately harmful slander, intent to incite violence, etc.

See the difference?

Twitter, facebook and linkedin are not 'carriers', dumbo. They are 'Content Providers' that allow their members to post content. Net Neutrality applies to carriers (ISPs), not content providers.

They do have laws that protect them from lawsuits because they are letting other people provide the content on their platforms. But as you said that are required to delete malicious content. They are not required to allow anyone to post anything they want.