(12-05-2022, 02:12 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(12-05-2022, 02:01 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: This conversation is bifurcating. Sorry, Marty, I derailed your thread.

My point is that collusion exists between the White House, the Democrat party, the MSM, and social media. It is real and unquestionable. While Trump wanting to suspend the Constitution is illegal, unethical and downright looney, we can confidently draw a parallel between that and the unconstitutionality of the suppression of the free speech by private publishers at the behest of government and party officials.

So, let me ask this question. If a baker is successfully sued for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couple, why isn't that same standard applied to publishers who refuse to publish one side of ideological speech?

I don't think that baker should have faced any legal jeopardy, but, the Colorado law that was enforced against him made it illegal for certain private businesses to discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.  That Colorado law did not make it illegal to discriminate based on political viewpoint.  If you want publishers to have to carry "both sides" of a given debate, that sounds a lot like the "fairness doctrine."  Or am I misunderstanding something?

The fairness doctrine argument holds true to a point. The baker stated upfront what he would and would not do. There was no collusion with government officials and others to suppress the couple’s rights. 

On the other hand, publishers are censoring views that may not agree with their own, but are also doing it at the request of political and government entities to not only shape public opinion, but to also influence elections by hiding pertinent facts. 

The baker analogy was probably not the best to use.

---