Read again what you have formulated above. You just asserted that it's 'immoral' without giving any argument or evidence for it. Surely, you should formulate an argument yourself first, before asking for one.
However, I would have thought that this line of reasoning is self-evident on a forum such as this one...
What is self evident to you might be self evidently wrong to others, let your arguments speak instead of appealing to your local culture. this is an international forum and one shouldn't just assume that everybody thinks and values the exact same things. maybe start off by explaining why your moral framework is supposedly 'absolute' and not just some arbitrary choice you made that is convenient to you and how it's supposedly better or more valid than the moral framework of the people you lazily vilified as 'crazy' just because they oppose you on certain issues.
And now I'm done talking to homophobes.
See that makes your 'moral assessment' as worthless as your infantile name-calling. If you had any valid arguments, you would have given them. Thanks for the exchange anyway.
LGBT is just an example, because in many cultures it is immoral. As is the nipple.
I just don't think it's a good idea for a private company, to be able to decide arbitrarily what is moral and what is not. Especially facebook.... there are many bakeries, but not many social networks with billions of users.
You seem to be under the illusion that if Facebook banned nothing (or at least nothing that goes beyond what is illegal), they would not make a moral decision.
But that is wrong. Deciding to allow absolutely everything is a decision (e.g. by placing higher moral value on freedom of expression than on other things) just as much as deciding to disallow some other content is a decision.
In the end, there is no escaping morality. As a human being, it is your responsibility to make decisions according to your own moral standards (and the limits of the law) and if you're someone with power, these decisions will affect more people and will be scrutinised more.
> Who decides what is moral and what is not?
Everyone decides for themselves. And then we come together as a society and we figure out what to do about the messy differences between our positions and find some sort of compromise - that's really the only way it goes.
But as a matter of fact, it wasn't about bakers not baking a cake for gay people, or whether you should be allowed to make rape jokes - all topics that maybe have a bit more nuance to them, and can be discussed elsewhere.
The question was "would it be wrong for Facebook to ban LGBT content"? I contend that it would be wrong, i.e. immoral. If you disagree with that, we can try to have an argument about that. If you agree or don't care, I don't see the point in this mental exercise.
It is of zero interest in any discussion ever that there are hypothetical people who disagree with opinion X, because I'm not arguing with hypothetical people. I'm having an argument with specific individuals with specific beliefs.