LGBT Staff Won't Serve Christians

[dblack]

Please show me where I am "terrified" of gays and minorities.

You made the accusation, now back it up.

That wasn't mean to be a personal accusation, and I apologize. I don't know you to be a racist or a bigot. But it's a common theme of Trump Republicans, and it's the kind of mindless fear driving the movement.

 

[Marener]

Section 230 removes their liability, and thus their claim that the content is their speech. This simply now becomes a regulatory issue due to government benefits for the country in question.

Yes it would, but it's not the same as the case we are discussing.

It was the way he tweeted it, not as a historical tweet, or even as a position, but to directly provoke Musk.

Only morons who don’t understand what they’re talking about want to repeal section 230.

You’d have to pass the law in congress, with 60 votes in the Senate and signed by the president. It’s not going to happen because it would do so much harm to public discourse on social media just to satisfy your desire to protect the speech of Nazis.

Provoking Elon Musk is still protected speech and if we did it your way, he would still be on Twitter doing it.

 

[martybegan]

That wasn't mean to be a personal accusation, and I apologize. I don't know you to be a racist or a bigot. But it's a common theme of Trump Republicans, and it's the kind of mindless fear driving the movement.

It's a common smear of Republicans in general, and you went along with it.

So much for the man in the middle.

 

[dblack]

Only morons who don’t understand what they’re talking about want to repeal section 230.

You’d have to pass the law in congress, with 60 votes in the Senate and signed by the president. It’s not going to happen because it would do so much harm to public discourse on social media just to satisfy your desire to protect the speech of Nazis.

I don't think it would change much. Once the dust settled, the courts would arrive at the same policy via precedent. It's one of those laws meant to shortcut that process, but we'd end up in the same place without it. Government uses these kinds of laws as a "foot in the door". They offer up regulations as "conveniences", so industry accepts them, but then later the state uses the laws as an excuse for more and more intrusion - as they're doing here.

 

[martybegan]

Only morons who don’t understand what they’re talking about want to repeal section 230.

You’d have to pass the law in congress, with 60 votes in the Senate and signed by the president. It’s not going to happen because it would do so much harm to public discourse on social media just to satisfy your desire to protect the speech of Nazis.

Provoking Elon Musk is still protected speech and if we did it your way, he would still be on Twitter doing it.

Or just say 230 protections don't apply to open social media platforms. Simple.

He still says he will ban "threatening" accounts, and that was a threat to him. basically "Ban me if you have the balls"

When has he said he would allow provocations?

And you didn't answer my last question. I wonder why.......

 

[dblack]

It's a common smear of Republicans in general, and you went along with it.

It's a perfectly valid criticism. Your head has to be pretty deep in the sand to deny it.

 

[martybegan]

It's a perfectly valid criticism. Your head has to be pretty deep in the sand to deny it.

It's the "everyone to the right of Mitt Romney is a Nazi" bullshit.

If Republicans were truly racists to the core they wouldn't care inner city blacks are gunning each other down, they would cheer for it.

If Republicans were the SSM bigots people claim they are they would be against ALL PA regulations, not just contract based allowances for free exercise.

Only the left is currently "our way or the highway" on almost all issues.

 

[Marener]

Or just say 230 protections don't apply to open social media platforms. Simple.

He still says he will ban "threatening" accounts, and that was a threat to him. basically "Ban me if you have the balls"

When has he said he would allow provocations?

And you didn't answer my last question. I wonder why.......

There was no threat in that tweet. The ban was because he realized that he’d have to support abhorrent but constitutionally protected speech.

Musk said he was a first amendment absolutionist and here he is banning speech protected by the first amendment. Lots of things are protected by the first amendment. Doxxing is protected. Do you want to pass a law prohibiting social media platforms from policing doxxing?

Your question is incredibly boring. Any text is bannable if the platform decides it is. It’s not up you useless losers like you. It’s up to the people who own the platform. I thought that’d be more obvious.

Section 230 is what makes open social media platforms viable. There are plenty of social media platforms that allow people to be Nazis or whatever.

 

[martybegan]

There was no threat in that tweet. The ban was because he realized that he’d have to support abhorrent but constitutionally protected speech.

Musk said he was a first amendment absolutionist and here he is banning speech protected by the first amendment. Lots of things are protected by the first amendment. Doxxing is protected. Do you want to pass a law prohibiting social media platforms from policing doxxing?

Your question is incredibly boring. Any text is bannable if the platform decides it is. It’s not up you useless losers like you. It’s up to the people who own the platform. I thought that’d be more obvious.

Section 230 is what makes open social media platforms viable. There are plenty of social media platforms that allow people to be Nazis or whatever.

The tweet itself was a challenge, and as we have seen, Musk responds to challenges.

Doxxing is not protected, because it's use is an implicit instruction for someone to "do something" about it.

Section 230 removes the 1st amendment rights of the host by removing their liability and ownership of what is being posted. , turning into simply a regulatory question.

 

[Marener]

The tweet itself was a challenge, and as we have seen, Musk responds to challenges.

Doxxing is not protected, because it's use is an implicit instruction for someone to "do something" about it.

Section 230 removes the 1st amendment rights of the host by removing their liability and ownership of what is being posted. , turning into simply a regulatory question.

Musk was challenged on his commitment to the first amendment and he decided to bail on it. He failed the challenge.

Nope. Doxxing does not contain an explicit instruction to “do something”. You cannot ban speech because what you think is “implicit”. The first amendment is stronger than that.

Section 230 does not remove first amendment rights because they are still participating in the speech and the first amendment prohibits compelling anyone to participate in speech they don’t want.

You’d have to rewrite the law which is not going to happen.

 

[Vastator]

So... you do not, and can not know.
Thank you.

You are welcome. LARPers, and wannabes know though. Which says something in, and of itself. Much like their sham marriages... They wish to be acknowledged as something they know they aren't. How fucking pathetic...

 

[martybegan]

Musk was challenged on his commitment to the first amendment and he decided to bail on it. He failed the challenge.

Nope. Doxxing does not contain an explicit instruction to “do something”. You cannot ban speech because what you think is “implicit”. The first amendment is stronger than that.

Section 230 does not remove first amendment rights because they are still participating in the speech and the first amendment prohibits compelling anyone to participate in speech they don’t want.

You’d have to rewrite the law which is not going to happen.

It's amazing how absolutist you can be when it suits your political interests, i.e. silencing your political opponents.

Yes, it does, and anyone who denies it is just covering up. Fucking liar.

Section 230 gives them a pass, says the content is not theirs, and as such doesn't warrant 1st amendment protections on their part.

 

[Marener]

It's amazing how absolutist you can be when it suits your political interests, i.e. silencing your political opponents.

Yes, it does, and anyone who denies it is just covering up. Fucking liar.

Section 230 gives them a pass, says the content is not theirs, and as such doesn't warrant 1st amendment protections on their part.

Elon Musk said he was an absolutist, a claim which was disproven only a few weeks after he took control of Twitter. But Musk has every right to kick Kanye off Twitter, a right which you want to deprive him of.

The first amendment doesn’t hinge on your belief of implicit subtext. Doxxing is protected speech.

You cannot deny that social media platforms participate in other people’s speech despite section 230. You can’t ignore this just because it ruins your narrative.

 

[martybegan]

Elon Musk said he was an absolutist, a claim which was disproven only a few weeks after he took control of Twitter. But Musk has every right to kick Kanye off Twitter, a right which you want to deprive him of.

The first amendment doesn’t hinge on your belief of implicit subtext. Doxxing is protected speech.

You cannot deny that social media platforms participate in other people’s speech despite section 230. You can’t ignore this just because it ruins your narrative.

Where did he say that explicitly? got a quote?

Doxxing is not protected speech, it is an implied threat. Why do you need to know where someone lives if you disagree with them politically?

again, participating is not owning speech, and the first amendment protects speech you OWN.

 

[Marener]

Where did he say that explicitly? got a quote?

Doxxing is not protected speech, it is an implied threat. Why do you need to know where someone lives if you disagree with them politically?

again, participating is not owning speech, and the first amendment protects speech you OWN.

The first amendment protects you from having to participate in speech against your will.

So do you think doxxing is sufficient grounds for takedowns online?

 

[martybegan]

The first amendment protects you from having to participate in speech against your will.

So do you think doxxing is sufficient grounds for takedowns online?

making speech against your will, or being punished for it by the government, not participating in discourse.

The only reason to Doxx is to threaten the person you are Doxxing.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Queers should all choke on cake.

Your rhetoric proves my point. Homophobes are nasty fuckers.

 

[Vastator]

Your rhetoric proves my point. Homophobes are nasty fuckers.

If you think heterosexuals sticking their cocks where they belong are nasty fuckers; compared to a queer who marinates his man mean in another guys shit box… You got bigger problems in Wales than we do here in the US…

 

[Jarlaxle]

The difference is the baker refused to make a cake at time of request, whereas the restaurant book a private party for the christian group and canceled only 90 minutes before it was scheduled to start.

They certainly have a very good breach of contract case-the reason for said breach is immaterial.

And yet I still support the rights of both to do so.

As do I-though I do not support HOW this was done.

Big difference.

Also the fact they pulled this shit 1.5 hours before the event makes it actionable as breach of contract even removing the accommodation stuff.

This. Simply refuse the deal, fine. Cancel an hour before the event? No, that's breach of contract.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Sure... if you want to also include all attrocities committed by Christians... like World War I, World War II, etc.

But I was SPECIFICALLY TALKING about which group was trying to change laws in THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.

Muslims aren't doing that. They'd just be happy to be left alone and not need iron gates around their mosques.

First off, I'm unaware that WWI and II were fought in the name of any religion.

Second, what does it matter the country?
The LGBT workers at this establishment likely know which religion would cut their hands off. This is happening in today's world.

Sharia in action in Mali: Muslims amputate right hands and left feet of three men in accord with Qur’an​

Sharia in action in Mali: Muslims amputate right hands and left feet of three men in accord with Qur’an

This is, says AFP, "an apparent revival of a practice that had all but vanished." Why is it being revived? Because it's in the Qur'an, and so when it is discarded, some Muslims will continue to insist that their troubles can be attributed to having departed from Allah's law, and claim that if...

www.jihadwatch.org