LMAO, you're really reaching for those grapes. The courts ruled that "cakes for straight people" meant cannot be sold to non-straight people, which is in fact discriminatory and also illegal. I don't think BlackOakTV is requiring photo identification as proof of Blackness to sign-up. Stop it.

Edit: For clarity, the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of the homophobic cake shop in Colorado strictly on freedom of religion grounds, however religion is clearly not the factor here. And for your argument to be effective, you'd have to agree that a homophobic cake shop can't get away with discrimination simpliciter.

SCOTUS didn't rule in favor of Masterpiece on freedom of religion grounds, they ruled that the Colorado commission didn't exercise religious neutrality. It was an extremely narrow ruling and essentially kicked the problem back to Colorado to fix their commission. This is an important distinction as it results in vastly different outcomes.

Not that this discussion is pivotal to my point but the court wrote that:

>“[T]he Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”[0]

Not only is that utterly unclear, it doesn't even make a distinction between "they said something that offended Phillips' religion" and "you can't make/apply laws that are hostile to Phillips' religious viewpoint". I don't think there's a queer person in America that would perceive "vastly different outcomes" from a ruling like that.

[0]https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...

> You can only discriminate against white people. You can't discriminate against all of the political elite's pets. Pets include blacks, browns, gays, trans, and all the victim groups.

Wow. Pets, okay.

> I get that this tag line is more for marketing purposes, and in fact they might not refuse to take white ppl's money that want to sign up... but they are in fact discriminating in the type of content they will produce and stream-- but since its against whites it is okay.

Lemme ask you a question: are the American arms of Univision/Telemundo/Korean Broadcasting System also discriminatory since they also will likely not put up content by ethnicities other than their own, which would also be "against whites"? Cause they actually have FCC approval.

Pretty sure none of those networks are advertising themselves as 'something for -some race', they just exist, do business and focus a sector of the US population, never mention anything else

You can target a niche, thats fine, but doing this type of headlines, you just end up segregating yourself.

BET has been around since 1980.

> Actually the courts think that a similar business, "cakes for straight people", is in fact discriminatory and also illegal.

Remind me again which side won Masterpiece Cakeshop at the Supreme Court.

Also, there is a huge difference between denying service on a particular basis and designing a service to appeal to a particular community while leaving it open to all.

Interestingly your (mis) phrasing makes what is probably the distinctive difference.

It was actually "cakes for anyone except gay people."

It's the exclusion that gets you in hot water, not the targeting.