By your logic, then, private power companies should be able to shut off your electricity because they don't like the way you use it. That's a common libertarian argument (i.e., start your own power or oil or whatever company....).
NONSENSE!!

Thanks Brian , Eric Schmidt is C_A. Handled.
https://images.app.goo.gl/2c34FebSu11...

I agree you are most certainly confused, as is anyway who can up vote your post here while down voting mine.
I'm actually speechless by what you've written here and wouldn't even know where to begin.
You simply have to start at the very beginning and learn how we arrive at rights protecting government and why, learn what the difference is between state and private action and why, then go from there.
There's really nothing more I can say to you on this topic.

"My argument is based on basic understanding of existing law regarding restaurants and other service businesses."
Yes I understand that. I'm saying any law that prevents private enterprise from discriminating for any reason, is a leftist, rights violating law that I oppose.

"Your argument "But they should be able to..." is well taken and understood, but lets not resurrect the old Jim Crow system of business"
I'm not saying we do that.
I'm saying that the GOVERNMENT cannot discriminate because it's role is to protect rights.
Private enterprise is not government and can do as it pleases.
I'm saying don't equate government action with private action as those are two completely different things.

A corporation has all the same rights as a person.
It's you who is using false logic by trying to equate private enterprise with government.

You are using false logic, in defining a corporation as a person. It is not, and they have bought more laws to protect them than you can shake a stick at. The small business may fit into that logic, but You Tube is NOT a small business. How would you like it I I had control of the Gulch and just deleted every post you make because I dont agree with you? I bet you would change your tone real quick. The end result is a Gulch where everybody would agree with everyone else and just be an echo chamber. Now, you have what is going on in You Tube, an echo chamber. Silence those you do not want to speak.

They still can, until challeneged by some liberal moron. Take "No shoes, no shirt, no service". A woman comes in topless, because she says it is her right to express her boobs freely. Does it become discrimination? The whole discrimination thing got hijacked so as to make it virtually impossible to have a standard. Where this all falls apart is we have not defined the difference between a corporate entity and an private business. Under the current structure the discrimination laws are used as tools against people who are expressing their right to run their business as they see fit, corporations are NOT individuals (this is where SCOTUS showed its true colors in the campaign finance law ruling that opened the doors to deep state control, big money has big leverage). The argument that corporations have the same right to discriminate is illogical, simply because You Tube was supposedly started to make an open platform that would allow people to speak and say as they wished, with no controls or restraint except that imposed by the FCC regulations. Section 230 is manipulated to say thet companies cannot be held accountable for their actions, yet so many tweaks to the law have made it impossible to do anything to any of them, unless they are found to be engaged in some specifically sanctioned criminal act (like the Backpage fiasco). So, You Tube, by claiming their rules are for the good of all to prevent "any one of a dozen bad acts like harrasment, violence, racisim, discrimination". has a free hand to kill off anyone they deem politically negative. Here is a good rundown on Section 230:

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechc...

It claims a change, but that change was not against them, it actually enhanced their ability to censor.

The key thing is to not think of them as just a corporate entity, but to think of them as having done a bait and switch: "we will let you create a life based on making money and speaking your mind, and presenting material, freely, and now we have you hooked, we will blackmail you by cutting off your money and livelihood if you say the wrong thing, or we don't like it". They started the service with rules in place, and now people who have NOT violated their rules, are found to be guilty of unspoken crimes, and turned off. That is not free speech, that is censorship.

Now, as afar as "Go somewhere else". How big is Google? How much control do they exert on search and information? So, you start a competing platform, and how much exposure will you get? Have you ever looked an any search engine besides Google? Do a search and look at the lower left corner as it goes through the 8000 little connections and cookies and trackers and what all and 80% will have "Google" in them. Google has expanded into everything, and controls probably 80% or more of the information you can find. They are the controllers of what you will get. So, go start up your new platform, no one will ever find it.

The connection is undeniable:

http://fortune.com/2014/08/14/google-...

http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/0...

Funny, the connection is well know, even in 2012:

https://www.naturalnews.com/036889_Fa...

Whatever happened to the right for businesses to refuse service to any person for any reason? It was so simple.

It can get rather sticky, freedomforall. The baker has his religious right for his defense. As much as I dislike Islam, I'd have to side with a Muslim baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple, either, for the same reason. [side note: It would have been interesting to see what hoopla would result if the gay couple did go to a Muslim baker.]

Personally, if I were in the bakery business I'd have made the cake. I'm in business to make money legally and I really don't care who you are... show me the green and we're good to go.

Hello N,
Thanks and Peace to Q🗽

My argument is based on basic understanding of existing law regarding restaurants and other service businesses. I'm sure that is the way the SCOTUS will go with companies dealing in public Internet forums of various types as well. I don't think those laws were initiated for "affirmative action to go too far", but were mainly put in place to end the old Jim Crow.

Your argument "But they should be able to..." is well taken and understood, but lets not resurrect the old Jim Crow system of business. It didn't work out very well.

I think Facebook is stupid. A certain member of my family stays on it! But since she is a 'redhead', what can I say? We call her 'Lucy'.

Yes they demonetize and yet still advertise. In effect stealing the creators content. Basically , they subjectively enforce policy.

I do love the way you think!

Freedom of speech is a right that should supersede discrimination laws. How can you lodge a complaint of driscrimination if your lips are sewn shut.

They have been funded in the past by DARPA.
Taking my tax dollars to help develope the business. Their censorship should be illegal.

"It would seem to me that once a company sets itself up to serve the public and opens its doors to the public, it can't discriminate what public it serves."
Yes it can. At no point do you lose your rights, unless you've violated the rights of others, which being a successful business, does not do.

"Restaurants open to the public can't discriminate by race or religion, etc."
But they should be able to. This is an example of affirmative action going too far.

Those of us who are actually right wing, should be fighting for individual rights, not using existing rights violations to justify EVEN MORE rights violations.

That's certainly the law, but I don't agree. If you run a business you should be able to discriminate as you choose -- and you will pay the price with fewer people coming.

These tech companies can discriminate as well. If they do, they create a niche that their replacement can fill.

I am with the baker. But what are the general principles?

Free speech. Private property.
It may be easier to define the negatives:

Free speech is not a defense or a license when-
shouting fire in a crowded theater, giving instructions on blowing up a school, releasing private information on a private person, releasing secured information on the military of your government, copyright breaches, ..

Private property stops when in trade with the public, but if a baker clearly states they are of some religion then they may restrict trade to conform with the intentions of that religion, eg- trade on their sabbath day, if they say they are a bread-maker then no customer may demand a cake, can they be forced to sell a loaf to an idolator or covertor? Now if they say they are private bakers, with no public open hours, then all restrictions are ok.
A Prespertumpian church or declared business, can insist on a preacher who is, but can they refuse to employ a cleaner who is not? If they advertise in the public arena then no such discrimination, if all positions are filled only by invitation, then ok.

Going back to that baker, yes they were open to the public, but their religion was stated. It was clear in the trial that the agitators did not select that baker on price, skill, value, convenience or on anything except to make trouble, they only went to that baker because a religion was declared.
Now Gurgel acts more like a well-funded agitator than a small business baker.

Me dino can name two religious leftists~Catholics Creepy Joe Biden and Nutty Nancy Pelosi.

Devils advocate: So the cake baker must bake a wedding cake for the gay couple despite his own beliefs against gay marriage?

Excellent argument.

It would seem to me that once a company sets itself up to serve the public and opens its doors to the public, it can't discriminate what public it serves. Restaurants open to the public can't discriminate by race or religion, etc., therefore, these companies that opened their doors to the public's ideas and creativity shouldn't be discriminating against competing ideas.

Post Modernist using cultural marxism to the fullest extent to date.