[core-questions]

> Don't take a job serving the public if you only like some people and not others.

Seems like this logic doesn't apply to payment processors, web hosts, and anyone else who doesn't want to deal with free speech that they find offensive. Bake the cake, right?

[ProfessorLayton]

The anti-discrimination logic applies very specifically to protected classes, and only protected classes. So yes indeed bake that cake.

[spazrunaway]

What a mistake this all was.

[John23832]

Payment processors, webhosts, etc (I assume you're alluding a lot of the alt-right sights being removed from those platforms) have in practice refused to serve customers that expose them to legal culpability. There's a clear difference.

Yes. Bake the cake. The only legal culpability is to NOT do so.

[core-questions]

What legal culpability do they have accepting payments for organizations that run websites that allow people to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to free speech?

[m11a]

A lot of platforms have arbitrary requirements of who they'll serve or won't serve. Even those with fixed rules can enforce against anyone, and then just ignore your support tickets when you try to appeal.

I guess the difference in this case is targeting someone due to a disability/protected characteristic, compared to some other reason. One fair thing might be Uber subsidising rides of disabled people with guide dogs (in the sense that it pays drivers a bit more to account for cleanup costs etc). I dunno if they can be expected to do this, but such costs probably won't show up on their bottom line and the PR of doing that alone would probably make up for any costs.