Was discussing with a friend and wasn't sure where/how to go about this. I know big tech is currently going (or is it done) between platform or publisher. "Facebook can do what it wants because it's a private company" - to which I would argue about the "gay cake." Regardless, it then came up that allowing Facebook to do what it wants is the epitome of a capitalistic system.
Sadly, I was and am stumped as to how to respond to this.
The party that wants less government intervention (us) wants to regulate a private company? I know one of the things we want to do is and have done via .win is to circumvent that. "If this platform doesn't allow free speech, we will allow that opposing speech here."
Thoughts?
Why cant privately owned chemical plants just dump all their waste into the rivers? Oh that's right they used to do that and it was deemed too dangerous so regulations were put into place to prevent this. Your local hospital is a privately owned company, why cant they post photo's of a patients genital warts on their webpage?
A privately owned business in a free country does not really mean they can do whatever the hell they want. The real solution is to make an amendment to the constitution for the digital era.
I would suggest for a start that this new amendment would cover personal data, and speech. For example i would want each citizen to own their own data and be able to force corporations to share, edit, and delete what is stored. I would also want it to force all companies, including financial systems, to no longer be able to discriminate or deny service against citizens based on anything other than illegal activity. This does not mean you can force a private company to bake a cake, but it does mean that paypal can not deny you service because you are a republican or democrat.
For anyone that want a gay couple to force a christian cake shop to make a gay cake, you must also want a muslim restaurant to make pork chops.
"This does not mean you can force a private company to bake a cake, but it does mean that paypal can not deny you service because you are a republican or democrat."
I missing the differentiation here. Aren't they effectively denying you to getting the cake?
And the last line is solid - in that, there should be religious exemption. But at the same time, I wonder what would constitute a religion, such as starting up a new religion that's "F your feelings, we will discriminate against you for anything we want, and we're also Christian, haha, we win" church. I understand that's contrary to what the church is, just putting up an example. Thanks again all for the help.
The difference is that the Christian company can't discriminate selling you a normal plain cake because you are gay. But the gay couple cant force the company to produce a good. Try going into taco bell and ordering an McDouble.
Paypal is discriminating against taking on new customers or getting rid of existing customers, not because they bought illegal drugs from mexico, but because they did not like a tweet that was made on a different system outside paypals control.
There should be no exemptions needed or desired for religion. Just as you posted the second that laws get written to favor a belief, it will get manipulated. Facebook could claim that they worship at the house of zuckerburg and that hoarding personal data is one of their tenants.
Laws that force behaviors can seem good at first but can also be manipulated. for example I cant wait for SJW's to put laws in place that say we have to use the correct chosen pronouns. My pronoun wont be "he/him" it will be "fuck alah". I would love to see the look on the SJW's face knowing that they voted for the law that forces them to say those words. If they refuse then I can cry that they are oppressing me and violating the law.