• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    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).

    • WalrusDragonOnABike
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

    • zalack
      link
      fedilink
      71 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).

    • WookieMunster
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      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