A cake baker is not allowed to say "No Ni**ers Allowed."
There are protections against prejudice.
Orientation is protected.

Do you really want a segregated society?

So a Cake Baker, does not, “have control over their own business” ?

 Did the Cake Baker refuse to provide product because the Customer was spreading misinformation?

 I understand your point but we are talking two different legal avenues, and law is what allows these things to happen.  The difference is refusal to provide service due to misinformation is legal.

 You don't like it?  Change law.  Complaining will achieve the following:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg3Aha4IGk1n6NFoHGF09RdOChWTDO_
XeASaBI-JpHOQ29pKns7PmhS1naTFTFzl1gIopzglfhwEhvjpoIFq4md6HOSDivt70vXsAXmieYcy112
u3Mn55TdfwwoSK-7Uvbn0vDCAJW6Kw9fZgIIArpRgwLHlqfnTgCdD7rOI4Ixl_lrWmcgJMgScToHYQ=w
520-h640

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg3Aha4IGk1n6NFoHGF09RdOChWT...


Ooopsies! Disinformation!! Run Away! Run Away!

How about
Look AROUND and stop choosing to be a Dupe.

You Know that is bullshit.

Twitter survives solely because conservatives use it to argue against liberals who control the vast majority of the news and entertainment culture. Major conservative public figures complain about Twitter unfairly targeting them (which they absolutely do by the way) yet they will never leave it because it’s a platform for them to stay relevant.

If conservatives banded together and abandoned Twitter, it would become largely irrelevant because it would simply become an echo chamber for prime time news.

Twitter’s value is great for emerging news from sources on the ground at the moment. The fires in Boulder Colorado for example. It’s also a great source of what corporate news media calls disinformation but as time goes on, a certain percentage turns out to be absolutely true. The trick is figuring out what is crap and what isn’t , not easy.

"Twitter’s value is great for emerging news from sources on the ground at the moment. The fires in Boulder Colorado for example. It’s also a great source of what corporate news media calls disinformation but as time goes on, a certain percentage turns out to be absolutely true. The trick is figuring out what is crap and what isn’t , not easy."


 Exactly.

 Just like everything else we have to do an amount of personal work to figure out what's BS.  Twitter doesn't have to be some exactly equal source where they let everyone use their stuff and speaks nothing but truth.  

 Saying OMG Twitter is biased is like saying OMG Infowars is biased.  Gatewatpundit is biased!  FOX is biased!  

 Of course they are.  Why wouldn't they be?

Is this a hypothetical?  
...or did some cake baker somewhere deny a MAGA hat fool a cookie?

Race, color, gender, are protected by the Constitution.  That's where the authority comes from.
Maskless Maga hat morons are not protected.

Is FORCING a person/company to do something,
also 'protected', by the Constitution ?

 FORCING is not "protected" in the Constitution.  Humans are.

 If a person/company is violating the rights of another human then multiple degrees of FORCE can be implemented to protect that human's rights.  If FORCE is not required, then alternate means are acceptable.

 Is Twitter violating anyone's rights when they don't let them use their business tools?  Depends on the situation, if they say its because of gender/race/etc. then yes they are.  If it's because they say things Twitter doesn't like, then no they aren't.

 Twitter can be FORCED to comply or otherwise pay restitution etc. if they violate a Human's rights.  They can not be FORCED to comply or otherwise pay restitution etc. if they don't like what a Human says.


 So while people sit around complaining and arguing the semantics of how the Constitution "protects" FORCE, etc., the real work gets done by people that work on establishing if Twitter, by law, could be considered a public forum where 1st Amendment rights actually apply.