>I don't think property rights are naturally extended to Facebook as a global communication medium even if the communication does happen primarily on their property...

Then that's where we differ, and we'll never agree. Apple and Toyota are still private property even if they sell and manufacture things all over the world. As more people covet an entity's property, the importance of protecting that entity's property rights becomes more important. Not less.

And, (to be honest, I had to google this whole "cake" thing), you again are well within your rights to refuse service to anyone if you are a members only service. For instance, Costco is members only, so they can even disallow blacks shopping there if they want. Please understand, I'm not saying that Costco has racial exclusivity clauses in its membership agreement. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just using that example to make the point that they would undeniably be within their rights to do so. Just as many members only country clubs do. It's private property. It's members only. It's Costco's rules. It's the country club's rules. Sorry rich black people, you'll have to golf somewhere else.

And again, the nicer the country club. The more people who covet it. The more people who want to use it. The more important it is for us to protect their property rights. Property rights and Freedom of Speech are very much the same thing. You don't really have one without the other. If you infringe a racially exclusive country club's property rights on some twisted notion of free speech, you are very much necessarily infringing the free speech rights of the country club.