If something is just like outright "wrong", why not make laws? It feels more correct to handle things at that level instead of relying on tech companies.
Edit: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-in-USA-to-wave-a-Nazi-flag
Edit: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-in-USA-to-wave-a-Nazi-flag
Sometimes, the costs/risks of making and enforcing laws outweigh the potential benefit. Not everything wrong should be illegal; not everything morally obligatory ought to be legally mandatory.
Race
Color
Religion
National origin
Age
Sex
Pregnancy
Citizenship
Familial status
Disability status
Genetic information
If you want to add or remove a class, change the law. But political ideology is not, and should not be, a protected class. Private companies can decide if they want Nazis on their platforms, and this one doesn't. Take your libertarian fantasies elsewhere.
And how long did it take for this to get enshrined into law, and how many people suffered unjustly in the mean time? Far better would have been for any discrimination of this sort to be illegal across the board, to avoid the need to build up enough political capital to create laws protecting vulnerable classes.
That there is a specific set of classes that it is illegal to discriminate against is the problem: the next class that we currently don't recognize has to suffer until they're capable of building up enough political capital to change laws. Until then they're subject to the tyranny of the majority.
> But political ideology is not, and should not be, a protected class
This the substantive part of this discussion. Why do you think political ideology shouldn't be a protected class?
But ignoring historical reasons and realities, the contemporary moral argument for why religion deserves more protection than political ideology is because political ideology can be expressed (and protected) through participating in the political process. Whereas being a member of a religion is not seen as necessarily a political activity, especially in religions that do not engage in the political process.
Airbnb is not "the only one of its kind." If you look up the origin story of the company, or do a google search for their legal battles with cities and states, you'll learn that they very much do have competing alternatives, including the entire hotel industry.
Moral beliefs change, governmental systems evolve, laws take time to pass. You're complaining about why there is or isn't a law, but then you want to take this debate out of the reality from which laws exist in the first place. That sounds about as fun and productive as arguing computational implementations with someone who doesn't believe in the relevance of time or physics.
edit: replaced "computational theories" with "computational implementations"
In what government has that worked out well?
Also, Trump is a president of the people and not some dictator. The congress has to pass laws and people on congress are voted for by the people. Trump cannot just ban random things on his own.
The president has pretty insane powers. Both directly and his appointments.
This is why the majority of Obama's Executive Orders that were subjected to court scrutiny were overturned.