Fake news.  Prove its only against conservatives.  From what I saw that was disproved.

“I can get you a list of some more of this but there are certainly many examples
that your Democratic colleagues object to when… a fact-checker might label
something as false if they disagree with it, or, um,” Zuckerberg said before he
was cut off.

“I get that, I just want to be clear, I’m just asking you if you could name for me,
one high-profile liberal person or company who you have censored,” Lee said.
“I just want one name, one person or one entity.”

Zuckerberg was unable to answer the question and told Lee he needed time to
think about it.

“But there are certainly many issues on both sides of the aisle where people think
we are making content-moderation decisions that they disagree with,” Zuckerberg
said.

Lee then pointed out that most people on the call could easily identify high-profile
conservatives who have been censored before asking the Twitter honcho if he had
a better answer.

“Well, we can give a more exhaustive list, but again, we don’t have the political
ideology of our accounts,” Dorsey said.

“I’m not asking for an exhaustive list, I’m asking for a single example. Just one
individual, one entity,” Lee said.

“We’ve taken action on tweets from members of the House for election misinfo,”
Dorsey responded.

“Can you identity an example?” Lee asked.

Dorsey could not name the Democratic members of Congress off the top of
his head.

“I’ll get those names to you,” he said.

"From what I saw?"  Is that what you were taught in your prestigious private school passes as a source?

The Social Media Big-3 CEOs have been asked this same question in the past (and had no answer), and they all should have been anticipating it would be asked again since the purpose of the hearings in the past was the same as the one in this report:  is there an anti-Conservative bias on social media?

To this day, they've still not answered the question.

Lots of examples, however, of high profile Liberals being allowed to remain active after posting far worse than what got Conservatives banned (e.g. Kathy Griffin), as well as high profile Conservatives being de-platformed -- many of whom were reinstated with the explanation for de-platforming as "a mistake".

Facebook, Twitter CEOs struggle to name a single
liberal who has been censored on their platforms
https://www.foxnews.com/media/facebook-twitter-ceos-struggle-to-name-a-single-liberal-who-has-been-censored-on-their-platforms

I posted that legally scholarships can be canceled for many reasons, depending on the contract they sign.  I posted that people have been fired for not getting the vaccine.   I posted that as a private university they have leeway on admission.   If they feel students who are not vaxxed are a danger to other students they have the power to act on that.  We have evidence of current schools and workplaces can mandate vaccines.  When I went to school it was required to attend.  It was a private school so perfectly allowable. All true and all reasons why this would be perfectly allowable.  All full of logic and facts.

I posted that legally scholarships can be canceled for many reasons, depending on the contract they sign.  I posted that people have been fired for not getting the vaccine.   I posted that as a private university they have leeway on admission.   If they feel students who are not vaxxed are a danger to other students they have the power to act on that.  We have evidence of current schools and workplaces can mandate vaccines.  When I went to school it was required to attend.  It was a private school so perfectly allowable. All true and all reasons why this would be perfectly allowable.  All full of logic and facts.

Chances OmniDumb  thinks preexisting conditions shouldn't stop you from getting healthcare?


But is fine with it stopping you from getting  an education...

Nothing you posted addressed the actual facts of the DailyMail article referenced. 

Just stop trying.  You're killing innocent electrons and wasting megabytes of storage with your nonsense.

The FACTS show that the university denied her admission due to no vaccine, and the scholarship was subsequently taken back.  Nothing you mentioned about contracts  and "many reasons" is relevant.

She has a medical condition that should be accommodated.  It's illegal and against their own policies to discriminate on that basis.  They should make reasonable accommodations, including the hand washing, mask wearing and social distancing that has proven to be effective in stopping transmission in the majority of cases.  They can also give her closed circuit TV or webcam access in isolation if they think it's warranted.  So many ways to accommodate, but they chose to violate every rule instead.

Just stop.  You have nothing else  to offer.  There's nothing in the policies that says admissions decisions are allowed to be based on subjective "FEELINGS".

Pre existing issues that are not a choice shouldn't stop you from getting Healthcare. Things like smoking and being fat can or  more realistically make it more expensive.

Every one that I've seen which is like maybe a few restaurants when I pick up food.  So it does qualify. 24 hrs is a bit tough though as I have no plans to go out today.

every one where you have seen a sign had a sign?
that's different than, "Every dang business I see has a sign they can refuse service for any reason."
goalposts in the other end zone...

If I only saw a few businesses, and all of them had the sign that would make that statement true.  No goal post moved.

Are you saying that's what happened?  Or are you trying to use a hypothetical to avoid the truth?