The question is if there is alternative and if this thing applies consistently. If I want to create a club which only accept men or whites it will not be allowed and there was the famous case with the bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. The supreme court in the US actually sided with the bakery but then there is the question of alternative and whether it is a monopoly. The bakery was certainly not a monopoly but access to a payment system could be completely blocked for people with certain view and that's a bit worrying. We don't allow it with certain other critical utilities and we should ask ourself if some of those services are not critical utilities. I feel also very worried that when it comes to people views the people who decide which voice will be heard and which not is some tech company manager. The idea of the first amendment was that the government will not suppress speech because the government was the one with the power to suppress it but these days it is few unelected people in power position in a very specific industry and location of the US with a very obvious point of view and set of believes. So although I don't like certain opinions I like less the precedence we have here and the power given to very few people that I can't even influence by voting. It is like the city square fell under the control of some private company, companies like facebook and twitter are the modern city square and the first amendment should apply to it the same way it applies to any other public place.