Twitter has a monopoly. There’s no other platform that has its volume. There may be copycats but nobody traffics there. Try and correct me on that. Name the platform where President Trump could have switched to when he was banned from Twitter, one that has even 1/100 of Twitter’s volume.
And your cake analogy is bunk. The bakers were exercising their freedom of religion. Twitter isn’t exercising a damn thing other than arbitrarily censoring people based on politics and Nazism.
And to answer your question, if Dana White told Colby Covington to stop wearing MAGA hats and spewing politics during his pre-fight entrances and post-fight interviews, and Colby kept doing anyway, then guess what? Yes, I would think that Dana would be within his right to fire the guy and I’d think that Colby had only himself to blame. So thanks for asking the question, I just proved that I don’t make exceptions unlike you unethical democrats.
It depends why someone is banned. If someone encourages violence, glorifies violence, spreads misinformation that can hurt people, should they be banned?
I am not sure generalizing that democrats have no values, democrats are unethical, etc etc, is a good way to go about having a constructive dialogue. No single group or party is a monolith.
I can offer instances where I thought Republicans were being immoral. But I don't think every Republican is immoral. Know what I mean?