“Merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints. Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor."
SCOTUS Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Trump appointee.
Really.
Let’s just repeat what you said for everyone to hear, just so there is no confusion:
“Any corporation that is socially or financially backed by government, especially behind closed doors, is no longer eligible for the liberties of private entities.”
Please tell me how that statement is not absolutely, definitional, clearly communism. I mean actual literal communism.
Are you, a conservative, seriously claiming that no corporation with any financial or cultural backing from the government is eligible for the protections of private industry? Really?
Yes, free-speech is in the constitution. why don’t you go and read exactly what the constitution has to say about free speech. then please comment here, and be specific, on exactly where it says you can dictate the actions of a private entity, or compel a private entity to give specific individuals a voice.
I would appreciate it if you would cite the specific clause from the constitution, since you referenced it.
Yes, and everyone on the right and every honest conservative was out raged by the left trying to force a private industry Who they could and could not serve.
And so they should have been. But now suddenly some people here are in favor of the government imposing it’s political will on private industry because it’s no longer about gays but affects Trump?
Yes they are powerful, and huge. And yes that is a problem. But so are hundreds of massive companies who have near monopolies or cartels in industries. Break them up, make them smaller, works for me.
But don’t start dictating to private industry who they can and cannot serve.
Again, being it is irrelevant to their status as a private company. Would you except that argument if the left government tried to tell oil companies who they could and could not sell to, because they are publicly traded companies?
The fact that these companies are too big is indeed a problem and should be addressed under anti-trust and antimonopoly rules but it is irrelevant to their authority and rights as a private company.
Has a private company in America they have rules which they are public about and open with and if you break them they are removed.
The government should not be dictating to private companies who they can and cannot serve. you don’t get to only have conservative values when it is convenient and affects the left.
Look, Zuck is cancer fine, and he needs to be investigated for Anti-monopoly practices and a host of other things.
But in this specific case, Trump is in the wrong. You cannot force a private business to serve you if they do not want to, and the president of suing a private business for not serving you is awful. Do you really want the government or the courts forcing private business to serve people they choose not to?
I didn’t agree at all. You were wrong.
Exactly like the child of a US parent born abroad, they are ELIGIBLE for citizenship. But they need to apply, actually go to Israel and live there, and go through a lengthy process. It is not automatic. Yes, as in the US example above it is rarely denied, but certainly not never. Most famously, it was denied to Meyer Lansky.
Don’t claim you ‘know’ the process when your initial statement above was flat-out factually wrong.