This is quite an interesting response. It feels a bit "law for thee, but not for me". > (May I add that seeing progressives recycling discredited arguments use

This is quite an interesting response. It feels a bit "law for thee, but not for me". > (May I add that seeing progressives recycling discredited arguments used by bigots of various stripes in landmark legal cases to attempt to justify themselves in the present day strikes me as both deeply ironic and more than a little revealing.) You apparently overlooked the spot where I explicitly called out that I find the idea of discrimination based on race, religion, and/or national origin "odious". Nevertheless, you seem to have missed my point: Prior to passage of the FHA, the 1st amendment was viewed so expansively that it was seen as acceptable to discriminate against even skin color for housing (which is one of the most fundamental human needs). It took the FHA to change that. Further, not even the FHA protects political affiliation as class. On top of that federal law, specifically the Civil Rights Act specifically exempts (and again, I think this is horrible) private clubs (and religious organizations) from the protections against discrimination, even for discrimination based on protected classes (like race). It's true that we put limits on the freedom of association (and for good reason!), but political affiliation has never had the same level of protections as other classes (such as skin color or sex). In fact, only a few states (and "progressive" ones at that, like California and New York!) make it illegal to discriminate against employees for political affiliation. So, to recap: 1. Political affiliation is not protected the same way as race, religion, national origin 2. Not even race, religion, and national origin are fully protected (i.e., as protected as I think they should be) against discrimination by private clubs. As a result: 1. I'm not sure why you would expect the Fair Communications Act of 2020 to protect political affiliation--it's not generally seen as a protected class, especially in conservative areas. 2. Even if political affiliation became a protected class, private clubs may be exempted. You've asserted that Twitter is a public accommodation, but not said what makes them such. 3. It's hard to take seriously the idea that conservatives are concerned about political affiliation-based discrimination in one forum when they haven't bothered to extend those protections in many others.