4 ms·

> The actions of private companies on private property (virtual or otherwise) are an entirely different domain than government intervention. And yet, private b

> The actions of private companies on private property (virtual or otherwise) are an entirely different domain than government intervention. And yet, private businesses are subject to certain restrictions. For example, it is illegal to refuse service based on one's race or sex. I am not sure if companies are allowed to discriminate based on one's political views.

PCI-eX16 6y ago
Like when the Colorado baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor? Based on this comment, it appears you have a poor understanding of what qualifies as a protected class and what they are protected from. You might want to brush up on that.
- RestlessMind 6y ago
  Umm let's see what the SCOTUS said [1] : ... a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution...The Commission compared Phillips' religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law"... So first of all, SCOTUS "avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise"[2]. Second of all, you chose to bring this example up and comment on my understanding without having done your due diligence and understanding the issue properly. Oh the irony! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Majority_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#cite_note-36 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

PCI-eX16 6y ago

Like when the Colorado baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor? Based on this comment, it appears you have a poor understanding of what qualifies as a protected class and what they are protected from. You might want to brush up on that.

RestlessMind 6y ago
Umm let's see what the SCOTUS said [1] : ... a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution...The Commission compared Phillips' religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law"... So first of all, SCOTUS "avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise"[2]. Second of all, you chose to bring this example up and comment on my understanding without having done your due diligence and understanding the issue properly. Oh the irony! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Majority_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#cite_note-36 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...