all 17 comments

[–]ballooon 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

Are we going to force the Twitter and Google bakeries to bake a gay cake?

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[deleted]

    [–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    The "bake" the cake argument is also misleading.

    It's painted as if they refused to do any business with gay people. They were willing to sell them any of the cakes they baked. They didn't want to design a custom cake / do the art for it because it was against their religion. That's no different than demanding a Muslim draw a picture of Muhammed eating a hot-dog. Or better yet, forcing a gay cake decorator to decorate one with bible verses saying gay people are abominations.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Yeah, the whole thing, in each instance, was a total political witch-hunt if you looked beyond the MSM headlines and the SNL skits. Good on you for handling your wedding like a normal person who just wants to get married.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      nah the cake is actually more important

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Forcing ICANN and its friends to give everyone a field to grow some wheat would be better. But if "selling to gays harms business" isn't a fair excuse, "selling to [other undesirables] harms business" shouldn't work too.

      There may be some differences between ownership and subscription, but corporations insist on making everything a subscription, and most subscriptions are factually indistinguishable from goods.

      But granting everyone access to basic infrastructure, so that existing systems can be replaced the moment they betray people, would be better. Since all systems that can affect the economy, inevitable become corrupted over time.

      It's a good thing that we all live under capitalism, a system that doesn't allow the government to arbitrarily regulate the economy.

      [–]wristaction 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Yes.

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      did trump pay to use twitter and was it a service he needed to live

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      We still know every thought and movement Twittler makes, and he'll continue to get $billions worth of free news media for the click-bait comments his team whip up for him. They're a fucking industry. If he's removed from one private message board for encouraging people to force congress to stop the democratic process, then the private company made a smart choice. The main stream news media made sure that this terrorist was in the news so much more than other politicians before and after the elections, just like they put the faces of mass shooting terrorists on magazine covers. Also, if one were to read the book, 1984, one would see that limiting the authority of the press is essential for fascism, and that's exactly what Twittler &co have tried to do, to limit the news media. This cartoon should have the caption that fascists are to take control in 2016. All the whining here on Saidit about censorship is merely a parroting of right-wing media victimhood, when these fuckers are helping incite violence these past 4 years. MAGAtards are not victims of censorship. Quite the opposite - as American democracy was almost the victim. This is why Twittler must be impeached. This should not set a precedent. If you want to storm the Capitol, do it peacefully.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      If you want to tweet, don't get people killed.

      [–]christnmusicreleases[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

      Then you should ban Jack Dorsey and everyone espousing his values. Because they are planning to kill everyone else.

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      Jack Dorsey aren't gonna kill shit.

      [–]christnmusicreleases[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

      He's killed speech. First you demonize, then you silence and deplatform, then you attack, and finally you kill.

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      He hasn't killed anyone yet. People tend to really dislike killing other people. Maybe you feel differently because you have killed people?

      [–]christnmusicreleases[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

      He empowers Twitter mobs to dox and attack people. Which is worse because he affects more people in the process. And I assure you, extreme leftists have no inhibition against doing anything illegal or murderous, as the historical body count shows.

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I think you are confusing him for Trump.

      [–]christnmusicreleases[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      You must be talking about the 200 or so Antifa that led the capital riot. Or the agent who shot the Trump supporter.

      [–]fishbox 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Free enterprise they can do that if they want, it fact forcing them to do otherwise would actually take more government control.

      If this is all it takes to bring down your cause its because your cause is not worth fighting for.