(12-05-2022, 02:24 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:

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

It seems to me that forcing publishers to carry both sides of a political debate would violate the First Amendment.  Publishers have a First Amendment right to publish what they want.  The Catholic Times should not be forced to publish an article promoting atheism, for example.

Agreed. However, the Catholic times is not an open forum like Twitter. Twitter invites people to use their platform to publish their views, then actively suppresses the ones which not only violate their beliefs (which seems a little disingenuous if you’re hosting a public forum), but also at the request of other entities to give political (thus, legal) leverage.

---