> YouTube can ban all homosexual videos from its platform so long as it doesn’t ban unrelated videos from homosexual people? Yes (at least in states where sexu

> YouTube can ban all homosexual videos from its platform so long as it doesn’t ban unrelated videos from homosexual people? Yes (at least in states where sexual orientation is a protected class). > Further are you saying the baker could refuse to sell them the cake they wanted because it had some gay theme ( two girl names I think) so long as they offered to sell them a Superman cake at the same time? AFAIK this is not a settled issue. I imagine a reasonable test might boil down to "If you have a policy that you never put names on cakes then you can refuse to write 'Jane and Jill'. But if you will write 'Jack and Jill' when asked, then you also need to write 'Jane and Jill' when asked." In other words, the store may not have a policy that is functionally indistinguishable from refusing service to a protected class. Notice that Google banning videos about homosexuality would definitely not be equivalent to banning homosexuals from using its public service. This gets hairy; e.g., religion is a protected class. Could a Satanist cult compel a cake-making business owner to write down a disavowal of his God (in frosting)? Evaluating hairy edge-cases on a case-by-case basis are why human judges exist. IANAL.