3 ms·

People have been wanting Trump and other alt-rights banned for years _because_ of things they _did_ not who they are. Thats a major difference. And those users

People have been wanting Trump and other alt-rights banned for years _because_ of things they _did_ not who they are. Thats a major difference. And those users have repeatedly crossed the TOS of the services they are using but the pages stay up because it generates engagement. Twitter even admits that Trump was too big to ban because he generates far too much money for them and other social networks. Thats the crux of the argument people have been saying for years. Banning a gay couple is a complete false equivalence and I don't believe you can argue that in good faith.

ergocoder 6y ago
Why not? A private business banning people who believes in X, which happens to be gay's right. Just to be clear: I'm on the side of, if we are gonna ban someone, let's use a proper legal route to do it. Not "an exec thinks it's wrong. Let's ban them"
- perl4ever 6y ago
  The established rule, as far as I know, is that a private business can do something, like banning people, unless there is a law against it, such as one protecting a specific class of people. Is that not how it works? Is everything illegal until a regulation specifically allows it? Should it be?
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    It's convenient, I suppose. A private business bans someone I hate. Oh yeah, private business can ban anybody. A private business bans someone I like. Oh no that's morally wrong. This system is stupid. It welcomes a screaming match or who can threaten the execs better.
    - amrangaye 6y ago
      You’re really comparing a homophobic ban of a gay couple trying to get married, to that of someone pushing an insurrection against the government? Would you also be against civil rights laws because they forced restaurants to allow black people to dine, and churches to marry interracial couples? Your attempts to make the two things equal is deeply disingenuous. This is an outright attack on the whole democratic system because one person is a sore loser.

ergocoder 6y ago

Why not? A private business banning people who believes in X, which happens to be gay's right. Just to be clear: I'm on the side of, if we are gonna ban someone, let's use a proper legal route to do it. Not "an exec thinks it's wrong. Let's ban them"

perl4ever 6y ago
The established rule, as far as I know, is that a private business can do something, like banning people, unless there is a law against it, such as one protecting a specific class of people. Is that not how it works? Is everything illegal until a regulation specifically allows it? Should it be?
- ergocoder 6y ago
  It's convenient, I suppose. A private business bans someone I hate. Oh yeah, private business can ban anybody. A private business bans someone I like. Oh no that's morally wrong. This system is stupid. It welcomes a screaming match or who can threaten the execs better.
  - amrangaye 6y ago
    You’re really comparing a homophobic ban of a gay couple trying to get married, to that of someone pushing an insurrection against the government? Would you also be against civil rights laws because they forced restaurants to allow black people to dine, and churches to marry interracial couples? Your attempts to make the two things equal is deeply disingenuous. This is an outright attack on the whole democratic system because one person is a sore loser.