Wasn’t there just a case where they ruled that a homophobic bunch can refuse services to LGBTQI+ members? If so, this might fall under the same freedom of business. I however think it’s really sad (especially in the above described case).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But what if some of the judges have a personal dislike of Twitter? Would it matter who bribed Thomas more?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure that ruling specifically relied on the denial of service being an expression of religious belief, which would be a hard sell here.

(Also, not endorsing the ruling, that's just my understanding of it).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wouldn’t that be a bit of a stretch? In the first case they’re refusing patrons while Twitter is blocking a whole service/platform

load more comments (6 replies)