GoDaddy pulls the plug on Neo-Nazi site

[Elba]

If it had been a gay or black pride site that got pulled there would be lawsuits filed so quick it would give you whiplash.

Are you equating black people and gay people to Nazis?

[Masark]

If it had been a gay or black pride site that got pulled there would be lawsuits filed so quick it would give you whiplash.

Do either of those groups advocate genocide? No? Then cease comparing them.

[Garnier Fructis]

If it had been a gay or black pride site that got pulled there would be lawsuits filed so quick it would give you whiplash.

Perhaps because gay pride and black pride aren't celebrating an ideology and regime which killed millions of Jews and started a war that resulted in tens of millions more deaths.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Hosting is less problematic I think, because they're basically loaning physical hardware. If you put that hardware to bad uses, including domestic terorism, then you can get the plug... unplugged.

[Garnier Fructis]

When that bakery refused to serve gays, they were sued and lost the case. How is this any different?

I am asking because i truly don't know, and would like to know the answer.

Because people can't choose whether or not they're gay, but people can absolutely choose whether or not they want to be Neo Nazis.

[Masark]

When that bakery refused to serve gays, they were sued and lost the case. How is this any different?

I am asking because i truly don't know, and would like to know the answer.

If you cannot immediately see the difference between a group that advocates genocide and a group of homosexuals, I do not see any possible way we will be able to explain it to you.

[Garnier Fructis]

My question is more on the legal side, so i am still confused.

Same reason. Aside from 1 exception (religion), protected classes deal with things that people have no control over. Discrimination based on those things is illegal.

[purebalance]

Who is more surprised by GoDaddy still being around?

I think it's just them trying to remain relevant. I mean they did all those dumb commercials that people got up in arms about simply to get their name out there.

[God Save The King]

If it had been a gay or black pride site that got pulled there would be lawsuits filed so quick it would give you whiplash.

Yes, because they're protected classes.

Neo-nazis are not protected. The equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment can be loosely understood as protection for things people cannot 'choose' to be, such as race, gender, ethnicity, orientation, etc (exception: religion is also protected), and is often referenced in discrimination cases involving race, color, gender (and as of Obergefell v. Hodges, orientation).

- - - Updated - - -

When that bakery refused to serve gays, they were sued and lost the case. How is this any different?

I am asking because i truly don't know, and would like to know the answer.

It's generally because of The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]".

In more layman's terms, the emphasized part says you cannot deny any person equal protection of the laws. Because of this line, many states have been able to successfully pass anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals, and, as of Obergefell v. Hodges, the federal government provides the same protection.

A combination of state laws, and the federal interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, makes it neigh impossible to discriminate solely on grounds of orientation. I.e. you cannot refuse service to a homosexual strictly for being a homosexual. If they violate terms of agreement, or break established rules, you can still deny service on those grounds without repercussion.

The cake suit was successful because the bakery refused to make the cake solely because the customer was a homosexual.

In this case, there are two big things lending themselves to GoDaddy's defense. One, political ideology is not a protected class (federally - there may be a local law I'm unaware of that protects them however). Two, GoDaddy did not terminate service solely because of their ideology, they also broke the EULA and ToS. If they happened to be gay and did the same, GoDaddy could also terminate service.

Hope that helps, let me know if that doesn't make sense!

[Independent voter]

The Nazi site, "Daily Storm" I think, got a new domain name but Google as said they will block it.

I don't know how I feel about silencing people like this even though their views are extreme.

[Slybak]

The Nazi site, "Daily Storm" I think, got a new domain name but Google as said they will block it.

I don't know how I feel about silencing people like this even though their views are extreme.

The answer is "good." You should feel good.

[Spiffums]

Yes, because they're protected classes.

Neo-nazis are not protected. The equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment can be loosely understood as protection for things people cannot 'choose' to be, such as race, gender, ethnicity, orientation, etc (exception: religion is also protected), and is often referenced in discrimination cases involving race, color, gender (and as of Obergefell v. Hodges, orientation).

- - - Updated - - -

Why have protected classes if we are all equal? Are you saying that those protected classes aren't equal to the rest of us? Can't have equality if certain people get special treatment.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps because gay pride and black pride aren't celebrating an ideology and regime which killed millions of Jews and started a war that resulted in tens of millions more deaths.

Black pride celebrated the killing of police officers.

- - - Updated - - -

Do either of those groups advocate genocide? No? Then cease comparing them.

You've never seen the "Kill Whitey" banners od the black panthers? You should get out more.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you equating black people and gay people to Nazis?

Well Nazis dont sue people who wont work for them so you might be right.

[Deleted]

Wow awesome fully support this 100%

Yay censorship! Finally! For the glorious leader! Am I right!?

[Masark]

Why have protected classes if we are all equal? Are you saying that those protected classes aren't equal to the rest of us? Can't have equality if certain people get special treatment.

Because you are either incapable of or can't be bothered to understand what protected classes are.

"Race" is a protected class, not "black people" as you and other (often deliberately) misinformed people think. You are part of a protected class, in that you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of your race.

[Elba]

Well Nazis dont sue people who wont work for them so you might be right.

Yes, you are right. Instead of cakes they want people in ovens.

[ShimmerSwirl]

The thing the left doesn't understand is that its not illegal to have an unpopular opinion. Its not illegal to be racist. You don't have to like someone who's racist, but you can't throw them in jail because they have a that opinion. Now if they go an kill someone because of that opinion that is different. But simply having an unpopular opinion is not a crime.

Remember when Donald Sterling was forced to give away his two billion dollar basketball team because he had an unpopular opinion? Its scary that so many young people are oblivious to the precedent acts like that and this are setting. You can hate Donald Sterling and think he's a terrible person, but that is not sufficient grounds to coerce someone into the loss of personal property.

Imagine if the tables are turned on the left, the media no longer champions your cause day and night, but rather they vilify anyone who has a different opinion on political matters. A good, young leftist is secretly recorded saying that more women should be replacing men in upper management positions. This audio gets out, and this poor person is stripped of their property and forced into a life of exile, simply for stating in a private conversation an opinion that is currently unpopular.

I hope people can see what a slippery slope this type of behavior leads to.

[Elba]

The thing the left doesn't understand is that its not illegal to have an unpopular opinion. Its not illegal to be racist. You don't have to like someone who's racist, but you can't throw them in jail because they have a that opinion.

Actually in my country we can if they do so in public.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember when Donald Sterling was forced to give away his two billion dollar basketball team because he had an unpopular opinion? Its scary that so many young people are oblivious to the precedent acts like that and this are setting. You can hate Donald Sterling and think he's a terrible person, but that is not sufficient grounds to coerce someone into the loss of personal property.

Imagine if the tables are turned on the left, the media no longer champions your cause day and night, but rather they vilify anyone who has a different opinion on political matters. A good, young leftist is secretly recorded saying that more women should be replacing men in upper management positions. This audio gets out, and this poor person is stripped of their property and forced into a life of exile, simply for stating in a private conversation an opinion that is currently unpopular.

I hope people can see what a slippery slope this type of behavior leads to.

Hardly comparable. Unless you think genocide advocacy and gender equality advocacy are equivalent.

[Wyrt]

The thing the left doesn't understand is that its not illegal to have an unpopular opinion. Its not illegal to be racist. You don't have to like someone who's racist, but you can't throw them in jail because they have a that opinion. Now if they go an kill someone because of that opinion that is different. But simply having an unpopular opinion is not a crime.

Remember when Donald Sterling was forced to give away his two billion dollar basketball team because he had an unpopular opinion? Its scary that so many young people are oblivious to the precedent acts like that and this are setting. You can hate Donald Sterling and think he's a terrible person, but that is not sufficient grounds to coerce someone into the loss of personal property.

Imagine if the tables are turned on the left, the media no longer champions your cause day and night, but rather they vilify anyone who has a different opinion on political matters. A good, young leftist is secretly recorded saying that more women should be replacing men in upper management positions. This audio gets out, and this poor person is stripped of their property and forced into a life of exile, simply for stating in a private conversation an opinion that is currently unpopular.

I hope people can see what a slippery slope this type of behavior leads to.

Why do you talk about it being legal and then whine about someone facing social consequences? Social consequences are not the same as legal consequences.

Wanting genocide of Jews is not the same as wanting more women in management either.

[ShimmerSwirl]

Why do you talk about it being legal and then whine about someone facing social consequences? Social consequences are not the same as legal consequences.

Wanting genocide of Jews is not the same as wanting more women in management either.

Having property stripped from you is not a social consequence. You have missed the point clearly, which is that its not important what the specific opinion in question is, but the fact that if the opinion is unpopular it leads to personal destruction. People are allowed to have opinions and thoughts on matters that are different.

[Wyrt]

Having property stripped from you is not a social consequence. You have missed the point clearly, which is that its not important what the specific opinion in question is, but the fact that if the opinion is unpopular it leads to personal destruction. People are allowed to have opinions and thoughts on matters that are different.

Was it a legal consequence? No? Then it was a social one.