Yikes

Should dating sites be able to be gay only or straight only?

basically what I'm getting at is that I think we should lean towards compelling service rather than an absolute right to refuse service. if you are compelled to sell donuts, youtube can be compelled to allow service too

yes

>Girls like Luci
Don't lie ManAnimal, you'd stretch that poon given 3 dollars and half a chance

they should

agreed

but why would i let him tbh

preference is inherently discriminatory

it's fucked up if they allow both

>implying animals can consent

cause if i ever found out a blind date was a trap, i'd punch him immedately in the adam's apple

If a company has a monopoly or accepts govt money it should not be able to refuse service

then piss on him

just for being dishonest

the funny thing is it's illegal to discriminate based on gender but virtually every person on the earth does that when choosing a mate

So you'd suck his dick and kick his ass?

I got no problems going BACK to prison, boi

It's another thing if they told you but you still took them to a backroom.

yep its b.c people are attributing motive to persons personal preferernce in discrimination

well @D3bug_logic even google isn't a monopoly, only 92% of the market right? youtube isn't a monopoly, we have bitchute!

but functionally there is no alternative

https://youtu.be/IqNlXuOlzew

yes it isnt a monopoly but it does take govt money

and visa/mastercard are a great example. not monopolies but they act in parallel so you don't really have an alternative

An open platform is like a bulletin board.
Anyone can put up a poster on a bulletin board. The person who actually built the board isn’t responsible for anything that is posted on it. All they did is use some carpentry skills to make a board.
Now, if the board maker decides to put a glass panel over it, and start reviewing what goes up on it, he isn’t operating an open platform. He’s now a publisher. He is now responsible for what people are putting up there.
So, if YouTube wants to be an open platform, great. They can do that. If YouTube wants to be a publisher, that’s fine too. But there are consequences. They’re now liable for everything that is posted on YouTube. *They’ll* be up for all the copyright issues, *they’ll* be responsible for incitement charges.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/599253788926148609/601972006908461057/syria.gif

well it is the banks not the cc companies

google takes gov money for defence projects

who doesn't?

that could still be covered under anti-trust legistation, if you have companies price fixing

it's not price fixing, they're service fixing

someone has to do the work for the gov?

deplatforming isn't price fixing

you want the gov to do the work THEEMSELVES?

preference isnt discrimination you dang dinguses

it literally is

yes preference is discrimination

i discriminate by preference

else youll also have to defend trannies saying not liking dick is also discrimination

but its not necessarly bigorty