Legal experts say neither of those are apt analogies. While it’s illegal to discriminate against someone because of their race or religion, the restaurant’s refusal had to do with the group’s actions, said Elizabeth Sepper, a professor at the University of Texas. “It’s about the overall positions and policies the group has taken — it’s not about Christian vs. non-Christian,” she said. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, D.C., Seattle and the Virgin Islands specifically protect people from being refused service because of their political affiliation or ideology.
Sepper, the legal "expert" [sic], they cite is an ideological warrior who's argued that bakers etc. should not be allowed to refuse a service to gays, and that provisions to allow this (expanding conscientious objection) would result in "anarchy". She actually used that word. She's clearly not an historian. She makes a distinction between actions and beliefs only when it fits. This Christian group was refused service due to their "overall positions" aka "actions". Gay marriage though, oh that's different, that's a "status".
What if a Christian company was to go on an intel-gathering mission on the seemingly innocuous gay couple looking to use their services? Past marching in a gay pride event? That's not enough Sepper would probably say. Promoting drag events? Where's the harm in that? There's always an excuse for 'my side'.
The world is a small place to a leftist, so small it fits neatly into their skull. Only emotions, not feelings - feelings have depth, matter. Applying those shallow emotions to every gay couple theoretically rejected by a baker or a photographer is how they create an illusion of depth. Any arguments that society does not benefit as a whole from this permissiveness are too abstract regardless of evidence. And doing away with any pretence of compromise and stating that you want the society that they have corrupted over 6 decades to benefit them more than us to be flipped, now you're dangerous. The slippery slope doesn't exist. But if you support an consolidation/expansion of legal protections for the "deplorables" in society, now it does. Then gays will never be allowed to have wedding cakes ever again, and every sentence uttered by a white man will end in the word "nigger".
Sepper, the legal "expert" [sic], they cite is an ideological warrior who's argued that bakers etc. should not be allowed to refuse a service to gays, and that provisions to allow this (expanding conscientious objection) would result in "anarchy". She actually used that word. She's clearly not an historian. She makes a distinction between actions and beliefs only when it fits. This Christian group was refused service due to their "overall positions" aka "actions". Gay marriage though, oh that's different, that's a "status".
What if a Christian company was to go on an intel-gathering mission on the seemingly innocuous gay couple looking to use their services? Past marching in a gay pride event? That's not enough Sepper would probably say. Promoting drag events? Where's the harm in that? There's always an excuse for 'my side'.
The world is a small place to a leftist, so small it fits neatly into their skull. Only emotions, not feelings - feelings have depth, matter. Applying those shallow emotions to every gay couple theoretically rejected by a baker or a photographer is how they create an illusion of depth. Any arguments that society does not benefit as a whole from this permissiveness are too abstract regardless of evidence. And doing away with any pretence of compromise and stating that you want the society that they have corrupted over 6 decades to benefit them more than us to be flipped, now you're dangerous. The slippery slope doesn't exist. But if you support an consolidation/expansion of legal protections for the "deplorables" in society, now it does. Then gays will never be allowed to have wedding cakes ever again, and every sentence uttered by a white man will end in the word "nigger".
How could anyone deny that this is a culture war?