Laura Loomer banned from Twitter

#77
#77
evillawyer said:
Yes, that's exactly right. First amendment only applies to government actors. So WH bans Acosta, First Amendment is potentially in play. Twitter bans a loony tune, no First Amendment concerns.
Click to expand...
I think it’s good, it continues to undermine the credibility of places like Twitter as “safe places” to speak your mind and discuss issues. It’s a safe place to speak your mind as long as they agree with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and InVOLuntary
#79
#79
Obsessed said:
I think this only applies to employment. Not services rendered.
Click to expand...

He’s right, my post above his was actually wrong although I doubt many here would have noticed.

He’s right. The civil rights act of 1964 codified this. Businesses cannot refuse service based on those factors. For classes beyond that it seems like it has been an issue reserved to the states, which is where I got it wrong. (See e.g. Colorado which said you must serve gays and Indiana which passed a law that got criticized as a way to refuse service to homosexuals.)
 
#80
#80
evillawyer said:
Yes, that's exactly right. First amendment only applies to government actors. So WH bans Acosta, First Amendment is potentially in play. Twitter bans a loony tune, no First Amendment concerns.
Click to expand...

Don't counter dumb arguments with a dumb argument.
 
#82
#82
Hmmm Twitter is a private company and thus cater to whom they wish, but a baker in middle America has to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding.


Edit: dang, late to the party.
 
#85
#85
InVOLuntary said:
I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were making the case that a private business should be able to serve to whom they wanted?

I got off Twitter a long time ago. It depressed me learning how many stupid and/or ignorant people there were.
Click to expand...

That was the case.

I should have phrased my last post differently. I was trying to say that not everyone who supports this loon being banned from Twitter lies in the camp of forcing bakeries to serve certain customers.

I've never had Twitter, but that sentiment kind of applies to everything/everywhere in the past 10 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#87
#87
InVOLuntary said:
I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were making the case that a private business should be able to serve to whom they wanted?

I got off Twitter a long time ago. It depressed me learning how many stupid and/or ignorant people there were.
Click to expand...

The baker's state has a law on point.
 
#88
#88
DinkinFlicka said:
That was the case.

I should have phrased my last post differently. I was trying to say that not everyone who supports this loon being banned from Twitter lies in the camp of forcing bakeries to serve certain customers.

I've never had Twitter, but that sentiment kind of applies to everything/everywhere in the past 10 years.
Click to expand...
And i agree with you. One of my best, repeat customers is gay. I do not judge, not my job. However, I think it's within a person's right to serve who they want and let the community/market in which they do business decide how that policy succeeds. Open a coffee shop and let it be known you don't serve blacks or any minority and see how long you stay in business.
 
#90
#90
InVOLuntary said:
And i agree with you. One of my best, repeat customers is gay. I do not judge, not my job. However, I think it's within a person's right to serve who they want and let the community/market in which they do business decide how that policy succeeds. Open a coffee shop and let it be known you don't serve blacks or any minority and see how long you stay in business.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Twitter hasn't shut down Trump's account? It would send them into freefall.

My favorite dumb argument in this thread was "but it's a publicly traded company!"

The only thing that bothers me more than partisanship is the mental gymnastics required to perpetuate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#91
#91
ClearwaterVol said:
The baker's state has a law on point.
Click to expand...
Sure it does but the logic applies to both. Twitter obviously wants like minded users and wants to eliminate the opinions they don't agree with. They want to serve their community by banning those of differing ideology.
 
#92
#92
DinkinFlicka said:
Why do you think Twitter hasn't shut down Trump's account? It would send them into freefall.

My favorite dumb argument in this thread was "but it's a publicly traded company!"

The only thing that bothers me more than partisanship is the mental gymnastics required to perpetuate it.
Click to expand...
Because that would be too overtly obvious as to their political agenda. It also, is raw meat to the people they cater to. It would be like rush Limbaugh not discussing Clinton or Obama. His show would cease to exist. They would rather work around the edges.
 
#95
#95
InVOLuntary said:
Sure it does but the logic applies to both. Twitter obviously wants like minded users and wants to eliminate the opinions they don't agree with. They want to serve their community by banning those of differing ideology.
Click to expand...

The law makes the situations not analogous.

Also, Baker said making cake violated his free exercise rights. Customer was refused on those grounds. Customer said that it was discrimination based upon sexual orientation which was protected under state law. In that case, the lesbian couple had been granted rights above and beyond what the federal laws granted them. In the case of Twitter, they are refusing provide a platform to this woman to express her views because they say she violated the community rules. Best case it is as you say... they don't want different opinions. I don't believe that it is so, but if it is... What is the argument against Twitter being able to censor their community? This isn't a clash of the rights of twitter vs. this woman's rights. Political ideology is not a protected class and thus this woman is left without arguments.

Twitter is free to discriminate against anyone for any reason not protected by law. (religion, race, color, sex, age, disability and vet status) Twitter could decide to ban all people that had an A in the last name if they so desired. Likewise, the baker could, as well had their state not enacted a law giving protected status based upon sexual orientation.
 
#96
#96
lawgator1 said:
Careful. There are those who call themselves Christian who oppress homosexuals, force people to wear certain items, and subjugate women. There are people in all religions, it seems, that do that to various degrees.
Click to expand...
Oppress?
Do we execute them?
You are talking mainstream versus fringe.
 
#97
#97
Orange_Crush said:
Even the court that told the WH to give him his card back said that it was a procedural issue and not a free speech issue.
Click to expand...

"In explaining his decision, Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...edd08a-e920-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html
 
#98
#98
#99
#99
DinkinFlicka said:
Yes. Any private entity should be able to refuse anyone service for any reason. If the refusal is so inherently bad, the consumer base will give consequence.

Why do you hate the free market so much?
Click to expand...
Good luck with that idea getting any traction. Fwiw, i agree with you but the leftists would never allow that
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top