@maxdancona,
Quote:Congress passes laws. They don't have to be balanced.
Sometimes they aren't, but I don't think anyone purposely intends that who isn't the definition of a crooked politician. I can't imagine that the people who actually care intend for unfairness in as much as can be reasonably hoped for. I think there are still some people in government who actually care about this country and the people of it.
Quote:Congress has passed laws specifically to combat racism.
Unfortunately racism is just a part of human nature. No law will ever erase it. It's sort of like passing laws against jealousy. There's a lot about humanity that is just plain bad.
Quote:in my opinion the civil rights bill was a very good thing.
100% agree.
Quote:There is a difference between regulating content and regulating people.... If someone wanted the Christian baker to make a cake in the shape of a penis... I bet he would be allowed to refuse content. He lost in court because the same sex couple wanted the same type of cake that other customers ordered.
First, to my knowledge after googling it just now, the case is still pending for him, or at least A case is still pending.
Second, you're actually further proving my point Max.
(Stay with me here) Let's say the person who wanted a normal shaped cake for a gay wedding is the same thing as Donald Trump saying on twitter that mail in ballots lead to voter fraud.
In both instances according to your logic the person involved wants the same service as everyone else.
~The gay couple feels they should be allowed to use the service to order a cake just like a straight couple can.
~Donald Trump feels he should be able to tweet his opinion just like how Taylor Swift or Nancy Pelosi are able to.
If we're following your logic it has to go one way or the other, it can't bend both ways.
Either the christian baker owns a private business and he gets to deny service to whatever people he chooses or he must meet some standard of fairness for everyone.
Either twitter is a private business that can exclude whomever they choose, or they must meet some sort of standard of fairness for everyone.
But honestly Max, I don't think you can rebut my prior example of the phone companies. I think it would be safe to say that for those
private businesses to deny service based on political or ideological leanings would be nearly universally condemned.
And yet social media platforms reach much farther and allow people to communicate much more broadly than any cell phone service.
Social media has a farther reach than anything else currently available to humanity, and that's why there needs to be universal standards of accessibility.
People who are denied social media access in our current age are de-facto un-personed. They have less ability to manage their entire lives including their livelihoods.