The issue was whether or not businesses had the right to not provide equal access to goods and services.
Refusal to make a wedding cake might seem frivolous, but behind that is legal precedent. If a company has the right to refuse to make your gay wedding cake, companies have the right to refuse you housing, food, services, etc. It’s an incredibly dangerous precedent.
It isn't but they are nothing compared to Youtube.
Wedding cakes aren't a human right tho, according to law. It can be refused for a private company, I'm not sure about the public companies tho.
This is comparable to arguing that we should force the best baker in town to bake the gay wedding cake because "the other bakers are nothing compared to him". It's still hypocritical.
You're in the wrong neighbourhood.
As said, it falls under a different category, and free speech is a human right. Cakes aren't.
The point is that they refused service, which sets the precedent that companies can refuse service to customers on a personal, discriminatory basis.
Of course they are. It's just that they don't care. Neither should you - it's no great victory to catch an opponent in a contradiction absent actual power to punish him.
It's not abstract, free speech is a human right and is protected by the US constitution. That's why Facebook came under fire for free speech violations.
Facebook is a private institution. If a company can reject to service fags for being fags, then it would be hypocritical for you to then get pissed off when a company that holds a platform decides they don't like what you're saying and toss you out to the way side.
Actually this would be a great way for us to get some "chuds" to join our side, simply by saying that the 1st amendment would need to be enforced by the government because youtube 2.0 nationally owned edition is nationalized.