Doctor Strangelove Says...

Calling for "civility" and defending monopolistic tech companies censoring people you disagree with is the zenith of hypocrisy, you dishonest slime.

I do not support censorship.

But I understand why companies do it. Mostly self-interest.

Companies censoring people is not taking away your First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects YOU from the Government, not Corporations.

Do you support Jack Philips's right to decline service?

Not the same thing at all.

Jack Philips was declining service based on who they are, not what they do. That is called discrimination. It is not discrimination, if Jack Philips refuses customers for not wearing clothes, swearing, or otherwise causing a disruption to his service.

The same pretty much goes for most corporations that offer people a platform. They're not required to let you do whatever you want, such as post pictures that are pornographic in nature or violent. Or rhetoric that promotes either.

Your concern shouldn't be little ol' me, who might agree with you on some things, or Imgflip, Google, Facebook, etc. Your concern should be with the FCC. An independent government commission that regulates communications. At times, they have more than overstepped their bounds when it comes to censorship.

Google and Facebook came under the scrutiny of the federal government after the 2016 election when these companies allowed foreign markets to buy political ads that contained false or misleading information. When the 2020 election came up, these same companies warned they would be cutting down on misleading information, in attempt to avoid another inquiry, to prevent being accused of foreign markets interfering with our election. Twitter thought it wise to join in that.

If it makes you feel any better, their efforts were rather fruitless as they got dragged before congress anyway for being too harsh on cutting down on misleading information. So, it is likely they'll reverse this soon or only be this critical during an election.

You're talking about free reign with zero censorship. No company is going to profit if they give a platform to people who openly harass others. There is no excuse for this no matter why you believe you have a right to harass people. And companies may absolutely refuse service to hostile customers that threaten their integrity of offering their other customers a safe and secure product.
Any company can defend it's interests against an individual; as long as they're not discriminating against that individual. Much as Jack Philips may have done.

Right, right. There's always some reason why YOU are allowed to impose YOUR WILL on us, but we are not allowed to do the same.

Go to Hell.

No need to go away angry. Just go away and come back when you have a good counter to my argument rather than a cheap insult or two.

It is my understanding that the couple were not infringing on Jack Philips religious freedoms. I'm not sure if they were openly hostile to him after his refusal. However, they did not tell him to stop being Christian. They just wanted a wedding cake and he refused service based on what they were, rather than what they did. Thus, it should've been ruled as discrimination. The only reason why Philips won his argument is because he was charged a commission dealing with the case as objecting to his religious freedom plea. Due to their inconsistent exceptions of the past and the level of hostility toward Philips' use of religious freedom as his defense, they lost.

I hope that clears everything up.

Yes, it is quite clear that you love using the power of government and monopolistic corporations to enforce your will on others, and then like to plead for "civility" when we tell you to get f--ked because of that.

I do not. As I have said, I've disagreed with the FCC over the years, and more frequently in recent years.

This meme has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. It's for people who use the politics stream to harass other people rather than share ideas. Your insults make it pretty clear which you'd prefer to use it for. A pity. I, however, hold no ill will toward you and welcome you to challenge my position as much as you like and insult me as much as you want. It does nothing to me but it does much harm to your own argument. Whatever it is it might be.

Pleas for “civility” from someone who benefits from powerful groups silencing those who disagree with them and has no problem with that action is disgusting dishonesty.

You want civility? You want respect? It’s easy. Stand up for our right to speak freely. Stand against those who shut us down or seek to destroy our lives for dissent. I would respect you then, and you would hear that in how I address you.

But you don’t and won’t. You’ll just whine that we’re not very nice to you. Excuse me for not caring at all.

But I don’t benefit from powerful groups.

I am standing up for everyone’s right to speak freely.