It is when you use it to condition an answer to a question. It is also not a fact, it is an assumption on your part. You’ve never lived in a world with it.
No it doesn’t.
That argument was only brought up later as an example of “Lib Hypocrisy”.
If you read the OP, you will find no such argument made.
Indeed the OP’s argument calls for more government oversight!
The problem is we have one, but not the other.
1 Like
Alleged Unfair Twitter censorship of conservatives has nothing to do with PA law.
Twitter didn’t violate this
42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Trump was not banned based on race, color, religion or nation origin.
Red herring
And the people on this thread (except for you it seems) are arguing for the other and not the one.
Nope. It is 100% true that I am a straight white dude and historically that has been a pretty great thing to be.
Don’t see why it would change.
Of course it does.
Organic evolution. I’m making his argument for him.
So then why argue that we should have both?
You see why this makes no sense… right?
Is social media a public accommodation, yes or no?
I know that… you know that… they even know that… but for some reason it gets them to argue for something that they are against and it is hilarious.
I didn’t. I argued that as long as we have one, you have to apply it to both.
1 Like
Yes and therefore they can’t violate this
42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Did Twitter ban Trump because of his race, color, religion or national origin?
No… you don’t
You rally don’t.
Then it becomes your argument, not his.
I’m making the same type of organic argument, only I’m sticking to what the people involved have actually said at the time these arguments have been made.
The same people saying social media platforms should be forced to offer their platforms free for speech with which they might not agree have also argued that private business owners should be free to discriminate if they wish to.
They want the same thing as already exists…only applied differently.
1 Like
Except legally, PA laws only apply to protected classes.
You are making a philosophical argument…but legally and practically it can’t be enforced at present.
Legalism. Rejected. “On the basis of…” can be expanded indefinitely. We are not discussing legal and illegal, we are discussing right and wrong. Liberal and fascist. Tolerant and intolerant. Freedom and oppression.
1 Like
Go for the expansion, then.
I suspect that you will find if you do so that many of the people here who have made threads such as these will not be on your side.
They want the baker to be able to refuse the customer…they don’t want social media to be able to do the same thing.
Rejected. No legalism.
You’re durn right I’m making a philosophical argument. Liberalism is a philosophy.
Education>Culture>Politics
Very few people who see something as fascist would think it right to argue for the expansion of that fascism because… reasons.
No. That is the legalist answer. Rejected.