I've heard a few references to the Masteriece Cakeshop decision in a few social medial channels I'm on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Co

I've heard a few references to the Masteriece Cakeshop decision in a few social medial channels I'm on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...). I think the comparison is pretty unhelpful. At stake in that case, and those on the right, was a concern of being coerced into violating one's religious beliefs because of Colorado's anti-discrimination law. The legal arguments at the time were if it violated the cake shop's 1st amendment rights of free exercise of religion. In today's context there is no anti-discrimination law for the likes of Parler, nor is there a concern that being forced to keep an app like Parler online would violate any constitutionally protected rights of these service providers should a statute ever be passed that did. Those backing the cake shop decision did largely for the free exercise of religion, not an appeal to the free market. Disclaimer: I didn't think a cake shop should be allowed to deny service because it's for a gay wedding.