This is one of the reason we have more and more protected classes. Political ideology just isn't one (yet?)
But, to bring it full circle, I don't think that someone selling socks or underwear on Twilio is going to be banned. When that happens, ok.
Furthermore, I know people believe in freedom of expression, and more or less capitalism. I know the Republican Party members side pretty heavily with the cake maker that refused to make cakes for gay weddings, or Catholic hospitals that refuse to offer birth control pills or abortions. But for some reason, when a privately owned company like Twillio, or Facebook, or whomever wants to limit their customer base, it's always a different story, then. For me, yes. For you, no.
Who decides what is overthrow/bad speech? Are they fallible? Do you think protecting the "ignorant masses" is beneficial to democracy? If you have someone dictate what can be said to you, won't that make you less able to think for yourself?
>I know the Republican Party members side pretty heavily with the cake maker that refused to make cakes for gay weddings
Although I agree there always are logically inconsistent people, I don't think this backs it up. Cakes matter so much less than than speech. I haven't thought/not familiar with the hospitals so that might be more appropriate.
>But, to bring it full circle, I don't think that someone selling socks or underwear on Twilio is going to be banned. When that happens, ok.
Yes, but they have shown they want a say in how you conduct your business. What if they ban you for doing business with certain people, what prevents them? (Not their morals as far as they've shown).
Not saying it's likely you will get banned, but I think it should be considered so companies don't all start doing this and you have to shop companies+moral compass.
