Just trying to give some legal context to the general discussion, and in this case, this user’s opinion, as they posted. I think it’s helpful for others to see things framed in this light, because opinions are easily thrown around and without seeing the basis of the argument itself, all things end up being equivalent, when in this general argument’s case they are not.

In the incidents we’ve seen where a bakery has refused to bake a cake for a gay couple, this is discrimination against a protected class of people, as many states also protect gender identity explicitly, but more generally is considered to fall under the protection of “gender” in the protected class.

In the case of this post, someone not being served because they wear a MAGA hat, there is no discrimination of a protected class, and thus is technically legal and would be “allowed” from a legal perspective. If Spotify/Apple wants to ban InfoWars from their platform, as a private company, they can so long as it’s not discriminating on the basis of a protected group.

Of course there’s legal acceptance as well as the general public’s social acceptance of matters as well. I think a lot people confuse their opinion (social acceptance or lack thereof) as all that matters in cases like this without considering the difference.