The Baker didnt refuse to sell products to the gay customer.
He refused to make a certain cake for a certain ceremony that violated his religious beliefs.
He should have that right. Hell, he should be able to only serve white straight males if he wants to. It's his business (but since this has to be spelled out every 5 seconds... I dont think he SHOULD do that)
Well I'm glad that as a country we've moved to the point that a business that tries to do something like that would run afoul of our laws. Not so long ago, many people were using the argument that their sincerely held religious beliefs prevented them from serving blacks. I'm glad we no longer indulge that kind of thing.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
There's no point debating you. You just pontificate without any basis in reality.
Again, what is the difference between facebook banning users they don't want and Fox News not having a prime time liberal show? Or MSNBC not having a primetime conservative show? Or the National Inquirer actually creating news?
The difference is that Facebook is social media, which is a totally different world. But facebook, twitter, reddit, they all can decide what speech they want and what speech they don't want on their platform. They're paying the money to host their site. SAV has every right to decide what speech he wants on this site and what speech he doesn't want. And if we don't like it we go elsewhere. That's the difference between social media and traditional media is that social media is about interconnectivity as opposed to actual product creation.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I think it is possible to favor healthy competitive debate while accepting that Facebook banning Jones and Farrakhan in no way infringes on that. I happen to think the climate of intolerance on college campuses is a bad thing. But it is possible to believe that without having a problem with Facebook banning Jones and Farrakhan. To me those are two pretty far removed issues.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
You're not even arguing what my point.
I AGREE THAT FACEBOOK CAN BAN WHOEVER THEY WANT
I'm not arguing can here, I'm arguing should. Why should facebook have to acquiesce to extremist views? For how many years were those views allowed to exist on the internet? It's been the longest time. And in that aspect of should. Should Fox News have a liberal primetime show? Should MSNBC have a conservative show. It is free speech afterall.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
imagine thinking facebook banning alex jones and his trash people is the same as the refusing to give service to someone that you said you would do by getting a business license
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
If we ban those political parties
Trump has to go as well then
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...ency-1.5939345
ALso dumb**** is comparing facebook groups to facebook pages. Though **** yeah if they find hate and defamatory posts from those posts, ban them. **** all hatemongers.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
goldfly (05-04-2019)
It was never gonna stop where it started
Love to hear the argument that facebook/twitter arent interfering in our epections and how what russia did in 2016 is evem 1% as impactful as whats being done now theough banning.