For real, how can they compare that one Christian bakery with Twitter and Big Tech.
And on top of that, they use it like some ultimate "gotcha" moment.
The bakery was asked to create something from zero (with their hands, their name and brand).
Twitter was asked to host something (made by others, with other people's names and protected by Section 230).
I personally think it's not that hard to distinguish between the two, but whatever.
BTW, I'm not excusing the politicians that made life super easy for Big Tech and their friends - I still think they were dumb - but now we are experiencing unseen levels of doublethink.
Twitter is the public square. Whether you agree or disagree, precedent says individuals or companies can't censor the public square, even if they own it. If Twitter wanted to have full control over who uses their portion of the public square...they can't just let people enter it. That's my understanding, at least. The more someone gives something access to the public, the more it is assumed that the public has a right to use it.
An individual business is not the public square. A multinational social media platform is.
Since they have been unchallenged for so long I can only assume that there's some legal mumbo-jumbo that prevents this.
The fact that other tech companies followed in their bans aggravates this even more and proves that they in fact control online speech.