You are replying to a poor argument from the parent poster, they don't have to be protecting anyone, it's fine for them to simply say "I don't want that jerk at my party"
> Your corporation has no natural right to exist
Natural right is a weird qualifier, some corps have a legal right or privilege to exist depending on "must grant" or "may grant" in the locality.
> and therefore does not have the natural right to do business solely as it pleases
Well sure, they aren't allowed to ban people for their membership in a protected class, e.g. their race or disability for the same reason that they aren't allowed to sell cocaine or kill people, because the law prohibits all of those things.
This is a particularly interesting topic - a lot of the parallels around private vs. public places seem to have eroded over time. Facebook, Twitter and others are now serving the function of a public place. They are means of communication used by governments and elected leaders.
I suspect at some point soon there will be a shift in the balance here, to try and address the extent to which companies are "private entities" sitting outside of the legal frameworks, where they deal with the public. NJ views privately owned shopping malls to be public places from a 1st amendment perspective, even though it is not publicly owned - it isn't a huge leap to consider FB or similar as a public space on that basis.
From being surrounded by Adams. Either you act in cases like that, or you become known as "that place that likes to invite Adam (and others)". And it's completely up to the host which side they want to be on. Twitch chose to end the invitation.
> Invite someone on the most wanted list.
That's not even close to the case discussed here.
The only ones I know about are related to the Declaration of Independence and I don’t have any evidence they are comprehensive.
I don’t have any evidence to believe of a conscious higher power, so my list of natural rights is likely to differ from people who do.
The extent to which corporations should be considered private entities does not seem like a settled question to me. Your corporation has no natural right to exist, and therefore does not have the natural right to do business solely as it pleases.
> and you have about the same level of responsibility for your party as twitch has for their platform.
What responsibility are they exercising? If the behavior on their platform is not disruptive to it, then what precisely are they defending their users _from_?
> You probably also don't care what the justice system thinks about the invitations to your party.
Invite someone on the most wanted list. I can't imagine it playing out that well for you.