Replies

In the present judgement of those who are appointed by those who are elected, validly or not, it is unconstitutional to deny a person or entity service or otherwise discriminate because of their race, ethnicity, sexual "preference," national origin, religion or similar - provided that it the real reason - but it is not unconstitutional to deny persons the service of a message based upon the ideological nature of it, and can exclude persons who do not agree to the ideological, etc. term of service. Thus FR can zot liberals and or certain content.

In the case of Masterpiece bakery, Jack Philips did not deny two sodomite service, as they could purchase anything off the shelf, but he denied them service of creating a custom work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an immoral (God's law) and illegal (state law at the time) sexual union. But this was judged to be unlawful discrimination since the denial was linked to what the couple was, a protected class.

Had he denied a heterosexual couple the service of creating a special work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an immoral wedding then possible he would not have been charged, though most likely the Civil Rights commission would have done so anyway. And not a Muslim baker who refused to make a special work to celebrate the anniversary of the state of Israel.

Requiring private entities to provide service to anyone would require entities like FR to accommodate liberals. And even treating the likes of Facebook as public utilities will not stop them from discrimination against conservatives, since that is likely what the Left intends on doing. No phone or gas to those who will not salute the flag of Sodom.