> Presumably, from your wording, you are also unhappy when a non-monopoly business cuts off service (which, technically, PayPal is, unless it faces antitrust action that I'm not aware of).
That's disingenuous. A finding of monopoly status might be legally definitive, but it's not necessary to reasonably conclude that a corporation is a monopoly.
Online payment alternatives certainly exist, in a similar sense that alternatives to MS Windows existed in the 90s. The recent Patreon/SubscribeStar event suggests strongly that there is collusion at the very least, if the source of the suppression was not PayPal itself. That doesn't change the fundamental point being made.
You are correct that I'm unhappy with discrimination based on political beliefs even when non monopolistic corporations are involved, but pragmatically, that's a much longer discussion. Tackling the immediate concern of people of people having their livelihood destroyed for expressing unpopular views would be sufficient as a stop gap.
> Try imagining the tangled framework needed to protect political belief in a way that wouldn't infringe on freedom of expression if you want to understand why political belief has not yet enjoyed such protection.
More than likely it's not a matter of difficulty, it has simply not been needed. The centralisation of power inherent to technology has been changing the landscape considerably.
Regardless, recent studies have clearly shown that conservative and liberal brains are structurally different, so to some extent, political discrimination is discrimination on physiology. I agree that it's a subtle issue as to what should and should not be considered a deeply held conviction, but it's becoming increasingly clear that it is needed.