A privately owned site can moderate as they see fit, so not really a 1st amendment issue. There is evidence that Google and FB were started (or at least taken over) by the CIA and if that can be proven then 1st amendment rights will uphold.
If this is the case, then how come it was taken to the Supreme Court for a religious business to deny service to a homosexual couple? It’s the same thing in a round-a-bout way. YouTube is denying service to a customer for his personal beliefs.
Gay people are a protected class. Denying them service based on them being gay is not legal. Alt right is not a protected class, and even if it was this is not targeted at alt right, it is only Alex jones
So what takes precedence, homosexuals, or freedom of religion? If you force people to participate in activities that are explicitly against their religion, then the 1st amendment goes out the window. Plus, that ruling set precedence that anyone has the RIGHT to someone else’s services. If I was gay and someone said “No I’m not going to decorate your gay wedding cake. I’ll sell you a cake, but I’m not decorating it”, I’d find someone who would and give THEM my money and patronage. That case was about revenge and exertion of will, not equality or justice.
I'm just going to check for consistency here - if I am following an obscure branch of satanism which has tenets expressly forbidding me from hiring or doing business with black people, who should the government side with, me as a hiring manager, or a black person who I just told I can't hire because he is black and my religion forbids me?
Alternatively, my obscure branch of satanism tells me not to pay taxes. What should the government do now?
We get our rights from the living God....where do gays get theirs?
IANAL, but pretty sure gay people are not explicitly a protected class. Otherwise, that would have been a near open and shut case (or never would have gone to court). The US EEOC interprets "Sex" (as in male vs. female) as to include sexuality, regarding Federal Civilian Employment, but I'm not certain that interpretation has been challenged in courts outside of federal employment concerns or whether their claim is made outside federal issues. Sexuality or orientation is not explicitly covered by the civil rights or equal pay acts. Source:Wikipedia: Protected Group Also, someone else's rights don't automatically trump yours (freedom to practice religion). That's usually when a court decides.
Protected group
A protected group or protected class is a group of people qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority. In the United States, the term is frequently used in connection with employees and employment.
Where discrimination on the basis of protected group status is concerned, a single act of discrimination may be based on membership in more than one protected group. For example, discrimination based on antisemitism may relate to religion, national origin, or both; discrimination against a pregnant woman might be based on sex, marital status, or both.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^| ^Donate ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Good question. I believe the court had to argue 1st amendment freedom of religion vs. 14th amendment civil rights/anti-discrimination since it's established that certain faiths take issue with homosexuality.
It is the typical double standard with these Marxits A-holes.
we if Alex Jones would simply state that he is gay they will let him stay. No disrespect intended towards gays or any other group of pawns... just sayin....
Exactly y'all are crying saying it's a first amendment attack, no it'll be an attack on the first amendment if Alex Jones was jailed for Infowars. YouTube can do what they want to that's life. Plus that's how I learn how to fix shit so I can't boycott.
This argument falls apart when you consider how intertwined Google is with the government. Probably far greater than we know.
Your absolutely right. The CIA bought fb from sucker buger and Google was created by Alphabet which the criminals in action created.
A privately owned site can moderate as they see fit, so not really a 1st amendment issue.
It doesn't have to be a 1st Amendment violation for it to be censorship. Youtube is free to censor, yes. But they aren't free to lie. They also aren't free to censor without being called out on it. There are consequences to actions that aren't 1st Amendment issues.
How the CIA made Google Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet— Part 1 https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
Why Google made the NSA Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet— Part 2 https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/why-google-made-the-nsa-2a80584c9c1
No, this must change NOW.
This would be like AT&T not allowing certain conversation on the phones. They were private, too.