The First Amendment is useless.

[Rigby5]

Websites can discriminate. They can also be sued. On the other hand, social media sites claim to be common carriers protected from lawsuits. That means they can't discriminate.

Very good point.
Worth repeating.

{...
A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in some civil law systems,[1] usually called simply a carrier)[2] is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport.[3] A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier (subject to judicial review) with independence and finality as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.

A common carrier (also called a public carrier in British English)[3] is distinguished from a contract carrier, which is a carrier that transports goods for only a certain number of clients and that can refuse to transport goods for anyone else, and from a private carrier. A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator's quasi judicial role of impartiality toward the public's interest) for the "public convenience and necessity." A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority. Common carriers typically transport persons or goods according to defined and published routes, time schedules, and rate tables upon the approval of regulators. Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, internet service providers,[4] cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., canal operating companies, trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers. Under US law, an ocean freight forwarder cannot act as a common carrier.[3]

The term common carrier is a common law term and is seldom used in Continental Europe because it has no exact equivalent in civil-law systems. In Continental Europe, the functional equivalent of a common carrier is referred to as a public carrier[1] or simply as a carrier. However, public carrier in Continental Europe is different from public carrier in British English in which it is a synonym for contract carrier.
...}

 

[progressive hunter]

The right to not be discriminated against does not require anything from anyone else, except the same treatment they give everyone else.

of course it requires something from them,, it requires their participation,,

 

[Rigby5]

So you're saying that the RNC & DNC web sites can't discriminate?

Seriously?

Like the Press, websites can legally discriminate as much as they like.

You're free to open your own web site if you'd like, but no one has an obligation to allow anyone to access your website thru their services.

Please try to have some respect for the private sector's rights to manage their own property!

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?

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

230 protections stop them from being liable,,
so your claim is wrong or a flat out lie,,

 

[Rigby5]

Yeah. Except that. This is "something", and for many violates basic personal convictions. No one should be forced to serve others against their will. There is no "right to not be discriminated against". It's an incoherent concept.

How does it harm you if when you open a business to the public, that you are then required to give the same business to all people, including those you may not personally like?
Do you have the right to refuse business to any you do not like, such as Jews, Blacks, polygamists, etc.?
The answer clearly is no, because that would break the social contract that holds society together.
If these people can not get what they obviously may legally need to survive, through voluntary commerce by you, then they will have no recourse but to use violence. That then becomes THEIR right. They have a right to survive, and if you deliberately impede their right to survive, the foundation of law allows them to kill you if necessary.

 

[Rigby5]

of course it requires something from them,, it requires their participation,,

Participation to their benefit, so it costs them nothing.
It is discrimination that costs them, because it is a loss of business.
And discrimination totally violates the entire social contract of protecting the survival rights of all equally in society.
When you allow discrimination, that threatens survival, so then justifies violence out of self defense.

 

[progressive hunter]

Participation to their benefit, so it costs them nothing.
It is discrimination that costs them, because it is a loss of business.
And discrimination totally violates the entire social contract of protecting the survival rights of all equally in society.
When you allow discrimination, that threatens survival, so then justifies violence out of self defense.

I disagree,, you cant force others into something they wish not to be a part of,,

exampls are the gay cake and gay wedding photographers,,

they never offered those services a=but were punished for refusing to do something they never did

 

[dblack]

How does it harm you if when you open a business to the public, that you are then required to give the same business to all people, including those you may not personally like?

Does the owner of a Jewish deli have the right to refuse to serve a Nazi?

The answer clearly is no, because that would break the social contract that holds society together.

No, it wouldn't.

If these people can not get what they obviously may legally need to survive, through voluntary commerce by you, then they will have no recourse but to use violence. That then becomes THEIR right.

Wow. No, it doesn't. That's insane.

They have a right to survive, and if you deliberately impede their right to survive, the foundation of law allows them to kill you if necessary.

By your reasoning, if a shop owner sleeps in and you can't get what they want, you have a right to kill him and steal it.

Again. That's just bonkers.

 

[Rigby5]

230 protections stop them from being liable,,
so your claim is wrong or a flat out lie,,

You obviously are not understanding the discussion.
The POINT is that what is supposed to be legal or not is defined by higher principles, not mere legislation.
Legislation like Section 230 Protection is just mere legislation.
What we are discussing is how you determine if mere legislation like Section 230 Protection is legal or not?

Specifically, Section 230 Protection is for common carriers, who republish content provided by others.
So there is nothing wrong with what I wrote yet, from what you posted so far.

 

[progressive hunter]

You obviously are not understanding the discussion.
The POINT is that what is supposed to be legal or not is defined by higher principles, not mere legislation.
Legislation like Section 230 Protection is just mere legislation.
What we are discussing is how you determine if mere legislation like Section 230 Protection is legal or not?

Specifically, Section 230 Protection is for common carriers, who republish content provided by others.
So there is nothing wrong with what I wrote yet, from what you posted so far.

principles vary on the person,,,

 

[Rigby5]

I disagree,, you cant force others into something they wish not to be a part of,,

exampls are the gay cake and gay wedding photographers,,

they never offered those services a=but were punished for refusing to do something they never did

The refusal of gay customers obviously was totally illegal.
It would not have harmed them in any way to provide the services, and they harmed the customers by denying it.
Cakes and photographs are not life threatening, so do not require the bakers or photographers to be killed, but it was obviously still illegal and in violation of their business permits, to serve the whole public, not just their arbitrary niche.

 

[progressive hunter]

The refusal of gay customers obviously was totally illegal.
It would not have harmed them in any way to provide the services, and they harmed the customers by denying it.
Cakes and photographs are not life threatening, so do not require the bakers or photographers to be killed, but it was obviously still illegal and in violation of their business permits, to serve the whole public, not just their arbitrary niche.

not if they never offered a gay cake or pictures of gay weddings,, thats forced participation,,

 

[Rigby5]

Does the owner of a Jewish deli have the right to refuse to serve a Nazi?

No, it wouldn't.

Wow. No, it doesn't. That's insane.


By your reasoning, if a shop owner sleeps in and you can't get what they want, you have a right to kill him and steal it.

Again. That's just bonkers.

Obviously a Jewish owner does NOT have the right to refuse Nazi customers.
If a shop owner "sleeps in" that is not discriminating.
It is not deliberate and effects everyone equally.
Nor does it cause grievous harm, since you can just come back later and get what you need.

 

[Rigby5]

principles vary on the person,,,

Not the principles law is based upon that are universals, like Blind Justice, laws being codified ahead of time so they can be equally enforced, jury of your peers, right to face your accusers, etc.
If law were to be subjective, that would make it illegal by definition.

 

[Rigby5]

not if they never offered a gay cake or pictures of gay weddings,, thats forced participation,,

Wrong.
If they offer anyone a cake or photo, then they can't pick or choose their customers, in any way.
Of course you can and should force participation when it does not harm the one forced, and it would harm the one denied if force is not used.

 

[progressive hunter]

Not the principles law is based upon that are universals, like Blind Justice, laws being codified ahead of time so they can be equally enforced, jury of your peers, right to face your accusers, etc.
If law were to be subjective, that would make it illegal by definition.

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,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong.
If they offer anyone a cake or photo, then they can't pick or choose their customers, in any way.
Of course you can and should force participation when it does not harm the one forced, and it would harm the one denied if force is not used.

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

 

[dblack]

Obviously a Jewish owner does NOT have the right to refuse Nazi customers.

wow...

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

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong.
If they offer anyone a cake or photo, then they can't pick or choose their customers, in any way.
Of course you can and should force participation when it does not harm the one forced, and it would harm the one denied if force is not used.

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

 

[dblack]

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

Only if they get written permission from the government.