Now PayPal has banned Alex Jones

[SteveRogers]

Why is only liberal PayPal allowed to dictate terms?  Indeed, are they Constitutionally permitted to make this exclusion for a business whose purpose is simply a conduit for money and payments?

Um, of course. PayPal is a private business. The Constitution forbids discrimination by governments. Obviously there's no Constitutional right to PayPal's services. What are you even talking about?

Atlas Liberals seem to believe that the Constitutional Rights of persons are dependent on whether THEY think a person is, or is not an HP.  Of course Jones is an HP. Our Constitutional Rights are only as good as the Constitutional Rights of the HPs of this world.

Again, there's no Constitutional right at issue here. The government is not limiting Alex Jones's freedom of expression. PayPal is.

You keep trying to draw a connection to the Colorado Cake Baker case, but you obviously weren't paying attention to the legal principles at play in that case. No, liberals do not believe that gay people have a Constitutional right to purchase a cake from a given bakery. However, we do support statutes like the one in Colorado that banned businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, just as every other state regulates discrimination on the basis of categories such as race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. The cake baker case was about whether or not a business owner's First Amendment right can trump such a state law.

There is no such law prohibiting businesses from discriminating on the basis of political ideology or the expression of hate-filled conspiracy theories, so Jones is out of luck.

"Other Forms Of Intolerance".  According to who?

Can the Colorado Cake Baker substitute "immorality" for "intolerance" and not get flak for not baking particular cakes?

No, because such a contract would likely still violate Colorado law which prohibits discrimination against gay people.

If you want anti-discrimination legislation that prohibits businesses from denying service to right-wing nutjobs, I suggest you write your legislators.

[SteveRogers]

Every red avatar: wtf, I love multinational corporations and capitalism now??!!

LOL the left is all about hypocrisy on free speech and who they want to have it. Some of the right too, but it's not as blatant. I don't see any conservatives saying that socialists have to be silent, maybe a few joking that they be thrown from helicopters Pinochet-style...but that's about it.

This is not a free speech issue. Alex Jones got to exercise the full range of his First Amendment rights. Now PayPal gets to do the same.

[SteveRogers]

Was there a Constitutional Right for black folks to eat at Woolworth's lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960?  Or Ollie McClung's BBQ in Birmingham, Alabama in 1964?  Or Lester Maddox's Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia in 1965? 

Again, no, there was not. That's why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. What part of this are you not getting?

Businesses cannot deny service on the basis of race because there is a law that makes it illegal to deny service on the basis of race (and sex, religion, age, disability, etc.). There is no such law that prohibits a business from cutting ties with peddlers of hate-filled propaganda. If you're arguing for the creation of such a law, then make that argument. But the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

[SteveRogers]

Was there a Constitutional Right for black folks to eat at Woolworth's lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960?  Or Ollie McClung's BBQ in Birmingham, Alabama in 1964?  Or Lester Maddox's Pickrick Restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia in 1965? 

Again, no, there was not. That's why the Civil Rights Act was necessary. What part of this are you not getting?

Businesses cannot deny service on the basis of race because there is a law that makes it illegal to deny service on the basis of race (and sex, religion, age, disability, etc.). There is no such law that prohibits a business from cutting ties with peddlers of hate-filled propaganda. If you're arguing for the creation of such a law, then make that argument. But the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

Why should businesses be able to deny service because of political views?

The highlighted quote is an example of ridiculousness here, not because Alex Jones is a bastion of tolerance and reasonableness, but because of the simple question of WHERE DOES IT STOP?   Today, the peddlers of hate-filled propaganda are Alex Jones.  Who will it be tomorrow?  Evangelical Churches who use PayPal to collect contributions and tithes?  Organizations affiliated with the pro-life movement?  Organizations supportive of building Trump's wall?  Zionist organizations that support the state of Israel?  And who decides where it stops?  Who decides who is "hate-filled"?  Because it's easy for me to see people apply this to Evangelical Christians over the issue.  What would you say if PayPal stopped allowing Muslim organizations to use it on grounds of "intolerance"?  Would that be OK?

You have no principle here.  You have only likes and dislikes.  Shut down people you disagree with, while defending the rights of people you agree with, even when the issue is the same in both cases.  (And people wonder where the "whatabutery" comes from.)  Here's the principle:  Can a business not provide a value-neutral service to a paying customer solely because of whom he/she is and/or what belief's he/she espouses?

OK, we cut off Alex Jones' PayPal.  Why can't we cut off his internet service?  After all he's using it to be hateful, yada, yada, yada?  Yes, there are many ordinary bills that have to be paid by snail mail these days, but why should he even have Comcast service; he'll use it for no good.  Why can't we stop him from using his bank card to pay over the phone; the money is only going to fund his hateful enterprises.  If PayPal can cut him off, why can't Chase Bank (or whomever he banks with)?  Indeed, why should Ford (or Chevy or Toyota) refuse to service his automobile; after all, it's not a life necessity, and he can use public transportation.  Indeed, why can't he be barred from the NYC subway; he's so hateful, the sight of him would be offensive to all the other riders?

Where does this stop?

If you can't say where this stops, you either (A) haven't thought through the issue, or (B) don't care about principle.  Doing business, doing ordinary business in a free society, is an act that ought to be value-neutral.  PayPal does one thing; it's a conduit for payments.  Alex Jones does nothing illegal with his PayPal account.  Where does it stop?  

I thought you believed in the free market. It seems like conservatives only believe in that when a business wants to discriminate against gays or kneeling football players.

Businesses like PayPal should be allowed to deny services to Alex Jones because, right or wrong, those businesses have their own First Amendment rights that are no more or less important than Alex Jones’s First Amendment rights. They have a right to protect their brand by associating or not associating with specific individuals as they see fit. Clearly they don’t want their logo appearing anywhere on Alex Jones’s website. I can’t say I blame them.

I do think there should be legal limits on the rights of private businesses to discriminate against customers. I support the civil rights act, and I support the extension of anti-discrimination protections to certain other vulnerable groups. But if you add the category of “political beliefs” to that list, then you are saying a business can literally never choose who they associate with. Where does THAT principle end? If I own a restaurant, should I really be required to serve my worst enemy if he walks in the door? Do you really think a business shouldn’t have any First Amendment rights whatsoever?

Certainly there are public utilities that must be legally required to take ALL paying customers. Obviously the water company can’t decide to cut ties with Alex Jones. And we may very well be at a point where internet service providers need to be regulated accordingly. But other than that, the exercise of free speech can and should be subject to social consequences.