Yup, constitutionally protected classes, of which LGBTQ -- which you seem to specifically target -- is not. Surprise, private companies can refuse service to members of that group, absent specific anti-discrimination laws. Employees are protected, via the CRA of 1964, from termination on the sole basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. See, Bostock v. Clayton Co., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). However, the Court punted, in the business' favor, when asked to rule on whether a business could deny services to same-sex couples on a religious basis. See, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm., 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018). Given the new composition of the Court, I suspect they will soon take another case asking that question and rule in the business' favor.
If you're going to make legal arguments, at least get them right.
They function now as a means for government and social services to communicate with people. The same way you “need” a phone to get a job, you “need” The use those sites to get the most efficient communication with things like USGS, emergency alerts, local
Law enforcement, govt officials and until recently potus.
They can’t function that like that and still cut people off. Ever tried to contact local govt or even conduct business like refunds on a website vs on Social media? It’s like sending a raven with a written scroll vs talking directly them.
They want to be a place to say “I had pizza for dinner yolo”, fine. Ban whoever. You want to be the first and most widespread network to tell people their local water isn’t safe or their volcanos gonna blow, you’re government and everyone has a right to that info.
I'm sorry that you don't like facts.
private companies can deny service to anyone... except A,B,C... LGBTQ ... X,Y,Z
Yup, constitutionally protected classes, of which LGBTQ -- which you seem to specifically target -- is not. Surprise, private companies can refuse service to members of that group, absent specific anti-discrimination laws. Employees are protected, via the CRA of 1964, from termination on the sole basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. See, Bostock v. Clayton Co., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). However, the Court punted, in the business' favor, when asked to rule on whether a business could deny services to same-sex couples on a religious basis. See, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm., 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018). Given the new composition of the Court, I suspect they will soon take another case asking that question and rule in the business' favor.
If you're going to make legal arguments, at least get them right.
They function now as a means for government and social services to communicate with people. The same way you “need” a phone to get a job, you “need” The use those sites to get the most efficient communication with things like USGS, emergency alerts, local Law enforcement, govt officials and until recently potus.
They can’t function that like that and still cut people off. Ever tried to contact local govt or even conduct business like refunds on a website vs on Social media? It’s like sending a raven with a written scroll vs talking directly them.
They want to be a place to say “I had pizza for dinner yolo”, fine. Ban whoever. You want to be the first and most widespread network to tell people their local water isn’t safe or their volcanos gonna blow, you’re government and everyone has a right to that info.