[SuperLuminal]

So, based on this outcry by GunBrokers, if I decide to not sell condoms, sex videos, and dildos in my gun store, bakery, or flower shop, I should be charged under the (albeit unConstitutional) RICO act or some (again, albeit unConstitutional) anti-discrimination EEO rule?

My reading of the Constitution seems to indicate that I can do what I like with my business, as long as I don't break any criminal laws... IMHO...

[semimojo]

So, based on this outcry by GunBrokers, if I decide to not sell condoms, sex videos, and dildos in my gun store, bakery, or flower shop, I should be charged under the (albeit unConstitutional) RICO act or some (again, albeit unConstitutional) anti-discrimination EEO rule?

Exactly.

At least as long as you have some undefined minimum number of users at which point you lose your property and first amendment rights.

For some reason.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, based on this outcry by GunBrokers, if I decide to not sell condoms, sex videos, and dildos in my gun store, bakery, or flower shop, I should be charged under the (albeit unConstitutional) RICO act or some (again, albeit unConstitutional) anti-discrimination EEO rule?

How do you get that bunch of nonsense out of what is effectively a censorship issue?

Companies controlling mass communications should not be allowed to censor on the basis of politics.

My reading of the Constitution seems to indicate that I can do what I like with my business, as long as I don't break any criminal laws... IMHO...

My reading of the Constitution informs me the founders intent in creating the first amendment is to prevent censorship. This is a necessary reading of intent because the companies controlling mass communications are now exercising powers previously only within the ability of government.

[Who is John Galt?]

My reading of the Constitution seems to indicate that I can do what I like with my business, as long as I don't break any criminal laws... IMHO...

An excellent point, that certainly applies to sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc. I believe both Apple & Google are publicly traded. A few years back, the 'left-tard' CEO of Apple announced that, "if you don't believe in global warming, Apple doesn't want your business" (or words to that effect). My response was - "Hey dipshit! How does telling a bunch of people that you DON'T WANT THEIR BUSINESS maximize value for the company's shareholders? Are you f*cking crazy?"

The same question can and should be asked, with regard to the current 'progressive virtue posturing' by Apple and Google management...