this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
189 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
18 readers
1 users here now
Talk about anything tech related!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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).
But what if some of the judges have a personal dislike of Twitter? Would it matter who bribed Thomas more?
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).
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