3 ms·

Nobody is obligated to loan you their computers, no. If we were seeing a refusal to peer or route traffic, then maybe it would be a different story.

xupybd 6y ago
No they are not. But if every restaurant in town refuses to serve a group of society does that warrant government intervention. It appeared to during the civil rights movement. I'd like to know what is different about this?
- Shish2k 6y ago
  > It appeared to during the civil rights movement. I'd like to know what is different about this? Support for a political group is a choice, skin colour isn't
  - xupybd 6y ago
    I'd argue that many on the right now find them selves outcasts in the world of social media as they are now lumped in with Neo Nazis, insurrectionists and all sorts of other nasties. I'd also argue that it's not so cut and dry that you can choose your political leanings so freely. It seems there may be evidence that we are influenced by our genetics https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left-and-right/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left... If this is the case it's not so different.
- myWindoonn 6y ago
  In 2018, Masterpiece Cakeshop [0] opened the door for religious beliefs and other First Amendment-protected expression to be used as a pretext to deny service to folks even if they would be otherwise protected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
  - mekal 6y ago
    Actually it might be the reverse of that. Not a lawyer, but that Wikipedia link says The Supreme Court did not address the basic issue of religious freedom. They kinda just threw out the case because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted in a hostile/non-neutral way in regards to the shop owners' religious beliefs. BUT, Kennedy's opinion (in the majority) "noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation". So it was sort of a nullified ruling, with a hint that they might rule against the shop owner the next time around...IF the state could refrain from acting like jackasses and comparing the shop owner to nazis and racists.

xupybd 6y ago

No they are not. But if every restaurant in town refuses to serve a group of society does that warrant government intervention. It appeared to during the civil rights movement. I'd like to know what is different about this?

Shish2k 6y ago
> It appeared to during the civil rights movement. I'd like to know what is different about this? Support for a political group is a choice, skin colour isn't
- xupybd 6y ago
  I'd argue that many on the right now find them selves outcasts in the world of social media as they are now lumped in with Neo Nazis, insurrectionists and all sorts of other nasties. I'd also argue that it's not so cut and dry that you can choose your political leanings so freely. It seems there may be evidence that we are influenced by our genetics https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left-and-right/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left... If this is the case it's not so different.
myWindoonn 6y ago
In 2018, Masterpiece Cakeshop [0] opened the door for religious beliefs and other First Amendment-protected expression to be used as a pretext to deny service to folks even if they would be otherwise protected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
- mekal 6y ago
  Actually it might be the reverse of that. Not a lawyer, but that Wikipedia link says The Supreme Court did not address the basic issue of religious freedom. They kinda just threw out the case because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted in a hostile/non-neutral way in regards to the shop owners' religious beliefs. BUT, Kennedy's opinion (in the majority) "noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation". So it was sort of a nullified ruling, with a hint that they might rule against the shop owner the next time around...IF the state could refrain from acting like jackasses and comparing the shop owner to nazis and racists.