Businesses refusing services vs social media disabling accounts

[spamking]

We're all aware that various social media services or businesses selectively disable accounts for content they deem inappropriate or against their user policies, etc. Basically they're refusing to allow "you" to use their services unless you abide by and agree with their rules or guidelines. Which I'm assuming these types of businesses are legally allowed to do right?

What's the difference in this action versus a brick and mortar place of business refusing to provide "you" services or allow "you" to use their services unless you abide by or are in agreement with their guidelines for services or how they want to run their business?


About a year or so ago Facebook started closing various groups that were facilitating the sale of firearms, ammo and accessories. These various groups all listed their guidelines and disclaimers about abiding by federal and state laws. Yet Facebook decided to play dictator and removed most of the groups. Even many legal businesses were banned or disabled from posting temporarily.

I know there are other means available to facilitate the legal sale of any product . . . I'm just curious how folks see the two situations.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Would be any different than "No shoes, no shirts, no service" ?

 

[Falsedawn]

Access to a product vs access to a service. You don't go to the store to use the store, you go to buy products. Stores that provide services often DO have terms of service indicating as such (Netcafes for instance).

You go to facebook to use facebook. Platform as a service.

 

[panamaican]

Public access. A brick and mortar store is open to the public, as in anyone off the street can enter the premises.

A social media website is not. They require you to formally register your intent to enter their "premises" and so they are a private premises which grants them greater freedom. Think of Sherdog for an example - you can't post here unless you register first and that registration can be denied. If you never register, you are denied access to posting and parts of the content.

A brick and mortar equivalent would be a store that required you to get company approval before you could enter the building and shop. Thus the store could impose restrictions before granting the approval.

 

[spamking]

Access to a product vs access to a service. You don't go to the store to use the store, you go to buy products. Stores that provide services often DO have terms of service indicating as such (Netcafes for instance).

You go to facebook to use facebook. Platform as a service.

Don't go to the store to use the store? How does that work? The store houses the products. The store provides those products shelter and keeps them "fresh" . . . . provides customers who choose to enter shelter, a means to purchase the products. You're using the store's AC or heat while there. Heck you might even go take a dump in their rest room.

If a legal business (firearms) is restricted by another legal business (Facebook or eBay) how is that any different than either business restricting or being selective with their customer base?

 

[spamking]

Public access. A brick and mortar store is open to the public, as in anyone off the street can enter the premises.

That's the sort of discussion I was hoping to get . . . I get what you're saying but even though a brick and mortar store has an entrance that pretty much anyone can enter, should that business be able to set some determination as to who they let enter?

A social media website is not. They require you to formally register your intent to enter their "premises" and so they are a private premises which grants them greater freedom. Think of Sherdog for an example - you can't post here unless you register first and that registration can be denied. If you never register, you are denied access to posting and parts of the content.

A brick and mortar equivalent would be a store that required you to get company approval before you could enter the building and shop. Thus the store could impose restrictions before granting the approval.

Should one business be able to be restrictive as it sees fit and another be forced to not be?

 

[spamking]

Would be any different than "No shoes, no shirts, no service" ?

That's what I'm getting at . . . yes, you agree to a rules of behavior or something to use various social media outlets or websites, but could the same be said for brick and mortar stores? If that sign you referenced is posted could it then be said if you enter you agree to wear shoes and a shirt to receive service?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

That's what I'm getting at . . . yes, you agree to a rules of behavior or something to use various social media outlets or websites, but could the same be said for brick and mortar stores? If that sign you referenced is posted could it then be said if you enter you agree to wear shoes and a shirt to receive service?

I would think so. There are restaurants and bars that have dress codes.

I'm no lawyer but I think a business can refuse service as long as the basis for that refusal is not discrimination against a protected class of people.

It might be legal to carry firearms but if a business wanted to install a metal detector and ban guns I would think that's legal.

 

[Gomi1977]

As long as duh gayz don't fornicate on the floor of the bakery, you bake them a cake. That's where this is heading, right?

As far as no shoes, no shirt, no service. No straight, no service, or, No christian, no service. See the difference? One is in regards to a customers behaviour inside the store, the other is in regards to the customers private life.

 

[panamaican]

That's the sort of discussion I was hoping to get . . . I get what you're saying but even though a brick and mortar store has an entrance that pretty much anyone can enter, should that business be able to set some determination as to who they let enter?



Should one business be able to be restrictive as it sees fit and another be forced to not be?

If the business sets rule for who can enter, they absolutely can be restrictive. There are no rules that prevent it. If Macy's required you to get corporate approval to physically enter their stores, they could restrict what you say and do within their stores as part of that approval. There are private businesses that operate this way already, you just don't hear about them...because they're private.

The thing about most brick and mortar stores is that they prefer open door policies to maximize sales and that means they willingly cede the ability to be restrictive in certain fashions for profit purposes. But there are businesses, private golf courses for example, or gyms (think of Planet Fitness's "rules"), that restrict speech and acts as a byproduct of their restricted entrance policies.

 

[Falsedawn]

Don't go to the store to use the store? How does that work? The store houses the products. The store provides those products shelter and keeps them "fresh" . . . . provides customers who choose to enter shelter, a means to purchase the products. You're using the store's AC or heat while there. Heck you might even go take a dump in their rest room.

If a legal business (firearms) is restricted by another legal business (Facebook or eBay) how is that any different than either business restricting or being selective with their customer base?

You are going to the store for the product, period. All the rest of the stuff you mentioned is extraneous. A store can be a store in an open air market with no AC or bathrooms, let's not be disingenuous here. You're going for the product.

If a store also provides services, there may very well be terms associated with access to that service as well. The service in facebook's case is facebook itself, so if you want to use their service, you have to abide by their terms. Terms are also subject to change at any time. This is normal. If you didn't want to abide by their terms, then you shouldnt have used their service. What's not to get?

 

[lecter]

discrimination should be a basic property right in the private sector

 

[ehtheist]

Technically, in the case of the gay wedding cake thing, wasn't the proprietor perfectly willing to bake them a cake, just not a cake for a gay couple's wedding? It's a fine distinction, but one that could be important.

On a side note, anyone remember the uproar when a supermarket refused to put a 3 year old kid's name on a cake? No? Me neither. No-one really seemed to give a rat's arse about denial of service then, whatever technicalities were involved.

"The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance. Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the Greenwich ShopRite, but with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article over the weekend on their flare-up over frosting.

...

About 12 people attended the birthday party on Sunday, including several children who were of mixed race, according to Heath Campbell."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28269290/...r-old-hitler-cant-get-name-cake/#.WXikr7pFxmA

(second paragraph cited just for interest's sake)

It didn't get much media attention, but I recall the discussions I had about it around the time having a lot of "Well, they're willing to provide the cake, they're just not willing to put this specific name on the cake - so no actual denial of service is taking place." Oddly enough, that reasoning seemed to go by the wayside when the bakery said "I'll bake you a cake, but not a cake for a gay couple's wedding."

 

[Falsedawn]

Technically, in the case of the gay wedding cake thing, wasn't the proprietor perfectly willing to bake them a cake, just not a cake for a gay couple's wedding? It's a fine distinction, but one that could be important.

On a side note, anyone remember the uproar when a supermarket refused to put a 3 year old kid's name on a cake? No? Me neither. No-one really seemed to give a rat's arse about denial of service then, whatever technicalities were involved.

"The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance. Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the Greenwich ShopRite, but with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article over the weekend on their flare-up over frosting.

...

About 12 people attended the birthday party on Sunday, including several children who were of mixed race, according to Heath Campbell."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28269290/...r-old-hitler-cant-get-name-cake/#.WXikr7pFxmA

(second paragraph cited just for interest's sake)

It didn't get much media attention, but I recall the discussions I had about it around the time having a lot of "Well, they're willing to provide the cake, they're just not willing to put this specific name on the cake - so no actual denial of service is taking place." Oddly enough, that reasoning seemed to go by the wayside when the bakery said "I'll bake you a cake, but not a cake for a gay couple's wedding."

What does a "gay wedding cake" look like? Is it a top or bottom?

 

[ehtheist]

What does a "gay wedding cake" look like? Is it a top or bottom?

So, what specimen of your quality posting nabbed you your dubs?

 

[panamaican]

Technically, in the case of the gay wedding cake thing, wasn't the proprietor perfectly willing to bake them a cake, just not a cake for a gay couple's wedding? It's a fine distinction, but one that could be important.

On a side note, anyone remember the uproar when a supermarket refused to put a 3 year old kid's name on a cake? No? Me neither. No-one really seemed to give a rat's arse about denial of service then, whatever technicalities were involved.

"The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance. Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the Greenwich ShopRite, but with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article over the weekend on their flare-up over frosting.

...

About 12 people attended the birthday party on Sunday, including several children who were of mixed race, according to Heath Campbell."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28269290/...r-old-hitler-cant-get-name-cake/#.WXikr7pFxmA

(second paragraph cited just for interest's sake)

It didn't get much media attention, but I recall the discussions I had about it around the time having a lot of "Well, they're willing to provide the cake, they're just not willing to put this specific name on the cake - so no actual denial of service is taking place." Oddly enough, that reasoning seemed to go by the wayside when the bakery said "I'll bake you a cake, but not a cake for a gay couple's wedding."

It's actually not the same thing. I'm not saying that one is right and one wrong, only that the 2 situations are very different.

In the 3 year old's cake, they didn't refuse a cake for the event itself, they refused an add on to the cake. In the gay wedding situation, they refused a cake for the event itself. A better parallel would be if the gay wedding bakers had refused to include one of those couples candle things with 2 same sex people but still baked the cake for the wedding. Or if the 3 year old bakers had said they wouldn't bake a cake for the party at all because of the beneficiary's name.

Again, not saying that one is right and the other isn't. Just pointing out that the 2 scenarios are actually very different from a legal perspective.

 

[Falsedawn]

So, what specimen of your quality posting nabbed you your dubs?

Hyperbole, I can go too far at times.

What about you?

 

[ehtheist]

Hyperbole, I can go too far at times.

What about you?

I called someone some naughty names.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Technically, in the case of the gay wedding cake thing, wasn't the proprietor perfectly willing to bake them a cake, just not a cake for a gay couple's wedding? It's a fine distinction, but one that could be important.

On a side note, anyone remember the uproar when a supermarket refused to put a 3 year old kid's name on a cake? No? Me neither. No-one really seemed to give a rat's arse about denial of service then, whatever technicalities were involved.

"The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance. Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the Greenwich ShopRite, but with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article over the weekend on their flare-up over frosting.

...

About 12 people attended the birthday party on Sunday, including several children who were of mixed race, according to Heath Campbell."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28269290/...r-old-hitler-cant-get-name-cake/#.WXikr7pFxmA

(second paragraph cited just for interest's sake)

It didn't get much media attention, but I recall the discussions I had about it around the time having a lot of "Well, they're willing to provide the cake, they're just not willing to put this specific name on the cake - so no actual denial of service is taking place." Oddly enough, that reasoning seemed to go by the wayside when the bakery said "I'll bake you a cake, but not a cake for a gay couple's wedding."

I remember the Adolf cake incident as it was fairly close.

With the cake incident you had people rallying against the bakery because they were screaming about discrimination and on the pro bakery side you had people that were arguing that a private business can do what they want along with people claiming religious freedom. So it makes sense that would be the bigger case.

I'm not really sure what camp would be backing little Adolf. It's not like there's a strange name alliance advocating for equality out there.

 

[Falsedawn]

I called someone some naughty names.

It happens.

As much as I irrationally dislike you, I respect the intellect, so I consider your viewpoint valuable on this.

I think the issue with the wedding cake wasn't necessarily that it was a gay wedding cake, but that it was denied for the event in particular. The implication was that if the same cake was made for a straight wedding, the baker would have made it. I can't say that anyone would force a christian baker to bake a cake with two guys fucking on it, as that would constitute obscenity and thus grounds for denial, but a regular cake for a gay wedding is just a regular cake.

Do you agree that in those circumstances it's not unreasonable to expect the baker to bake the cake?