Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 10, 2020, 12:50:47 AM
Regardless if it was overturned, they set the tone. If they had ignored the baker situation, then they would have the moral stance on private companies.

The tone that was set is no one can be forced to provide a service if it goes against their moral values. That is not a bad thing.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 10, 2020, 12:50:47 AM
Regardless if it was overturned, they set the tone. If they had ignored the baker situation, then they would have the moral stance on private companies.

Then you've fallen for the Leftist PC lie. I didn't, and no one I know has, So Maybe if you weren't such a flaming pessimist, you could help our cause in fighting back against such stupidity.

Quote from: Solar on May 10, 2020, 05:33:31 AM
Then you've fallen for the Leftist PC lie. I didn't, and no one I know has, So Maybe if you weren't such a flaming pessimist, you could help our cause in fighting back against such stupidity.

I am not a pessimist. I am just pointing out the fact they set the moral tone on private companies. We both know that they will "um, but" their way out of it because they are hypocrites and fascists. We shouldn't have to run to another platform, because they set the tone on how private companies should serve everybody.

But, social media are not private companies in the natural sense. If I want a wedding cake, I have to pay for it. If I buy a cake, I can do what I want with it. Social media is free. If social media is so private, it wouldn't be free for everybody and their mother. They want us to use it so they can make money on the back end. That's how they all are. Any social media platform wants to grow, no matter if it is a small forum or global communication platform. A small, local baker supporting Trump is irrelevant. A social media company deciding what political opinions are authorized has a global effect.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 10, 2020, 09:55:31 AM
I am not a pessimist. I am just pointing out the fact they set the moral tone on private companies. We both know that they will "um, but" their way out of it because they are hypocrites and fascists. We shouldn't have to run to another platform, because they set the tone on how private companies should serve everybody.

But, social media are not private companies in the natural sense. If I want a wedding cake, I have to pay for it. If I buy a cake, I can do what I want with it. Social media is free. If social media is so private, it wouldn't be free for everybody and their mother. They want us to use it so they can make money on the back end. That's how they all are. Any social media platform wants to grow, no matter if it is a small forum or global communication platform. A small, local baker supporting Trump is irrelevant. A social media company deciding what political opinions are authorized has a global effect.

Yeah, I know what you're saying, and the LSM runs with these stories as precedent setting, "there's no turning back" which is a complete bull shit lie.
Use some critical thought and quit rolling over and simply accepting the leftist narrative, nothing could be further from the truth!

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 10, 2020, 09:55:31 AM
I am not a pessimist. I am just pointing out the fact they set the moral tone on private companies. We both know that they will "um, but" their way out of it because they are hypocrites and fascists. We shouldn't have to run to another platform, because they set the tone on how private companies should serve everybody.

But, social media are not private companies in the natural sense. If I want a wedding cake, I have to pay for it. If I buy a cake, I can do what I want with it. Social media is free. If social media is so private, it wouldn't be free for everybody and their mother. They want us to use it so they can make money on the back end. That's how they all are. Any social media platform wants to grow, no matter if it is a small forum or global communication platform. A small, local baker supporting Trump is irrelevant. A social media company deciding what political opinions are authorized has a global effect.

Who sets the tone? That baker did not let anyone set the tone for his business. As far as social media goes, if you don't sign up for it, they can't ban you. To get on facebook, you have to signup and agree to their rules. If you agree to the rules, is there a complaint? And again, if you start a conservative newspaper and it grows to be the largest in the nation, should the liberals demand equal access to the editorial page just for the reason that many people buy your paper? 

Quote from: Possum on May 10, 2020, 04:22:36 PM
Who sets the tone? That baker did not let anyone set the tone for his business. As far as social media goes, if you don't sign up for it, they can't ban you. To get on facebook, you have to signup and agree to their rules. If you agree to the rules, is there a complaint? And again, if you start a conservative newspaper and it grows to be the largest in the nation, should the liberals demand equal access to the editorial page just for the reason that many people buy your paper?

The way the media runs with this stuff, they established it.

I don't necessarily agree with their decision to deny cake just on the basis of religion, but I overall support a business right to deny service. I would love to deny all lefties, especially since they do it to us on the regular. But, it's one of those things we don't do on just because of spite. It is just a protection for things like no shoes/no shirt/no dogs/etc. Any sensible business doesn't do that because they just want to go along to get along.

Given your newspaper example, is social media Liberal or Conservative?

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on May 10, 2020, 05:37:42 PM
The way the media runs with this stuff, they established it.

I don't necessarily agree with their decision to deny cake just on the basis of religion, but I overall support a business right to deny service. I would love to deny all lefties, especially since they do it to us on the regular. But, it's one of those things we don't do on just because of spite. It is just a protection for things like no shoes/no shirt/no dogs/etc. Any sensible business doesn't do that because they just want to go along to get along.

Given your newspaper example, is social media Liberal or Conservative?

When I think of examples of what I call the social media such as FB or youtube, I would call them liberal but in all honesty I can not think or know anyone who has not been able to post what they want. Nor do I know of anyone who has not been allowed to join just because they have conservative beliefs. But like most of life, I don't go where I am not wanted, and don't let people with whom I don't agree stop me from what I want to do. But I think that is really a conservative trait than anything else. I'm glad the court called it right on this one and think we can expect more more in this way of justice, and that should set the tone in the future.