A few years ago, there was a furor over a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. Those that supported the baker said that forcing him to bake the cake would infringe on the constitutional and religious rights that the country allows him. Yet that support seems to be very one-sided because when someone they agree with is denied service, those same people are up in arms and throwing fits about what is right and what is wrong. It's no longer a personal choice because their rights are being violated.
There are many examples of this, but Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a standout story. The White House Press Secretary went to Red Hen restaurant and the owner refused to serve her. Under the argument that was made for the baker, that was perfectly acceptable since Mrs. Sanders' actions everyday conflict with the principles of the owner of the establishment. Should have been an easy enough story, right?
Wrong. The right-wing propaganda machine went into overdrive deriding the actions and crying that Sanders' rights were violated. Some of them had a literal meltdown when confronted with the same argument that was made to support the baker. Donald Trump even got in on bashing the establishment, even though Sanders herself seemed to be over it.
It was the first real-world (meaning not overtly political, I'm looking at you McConnell) taste of the "what's good for us is not good for you" stance that the modern day Republican party offered. The only difference between the gay couple and Sanders' is how certain segments reacted to it.
One Million Moms are always looking for so-called Liberal shows to be mad about, and attack. At any given time they have called out Modern Family, Andi Mack, and a cover for Parents magazine for being obscene. They have asked that their members and everyone else boycott these things because they were offended by them. It is worth noting that what all of these things have in common are LGBTQ themes.
Recently, Spotify has decided to remove PragerU content from their page. The conservative video and content site are upset and calling for censorship. Once again, it is fine for the conservative movement to boycott and censor shows and media that they do not agree with, but when it happens to them, it is a big deal and they are being oppressed. That argument is rich from a site that says that there is no toxic masculinity and that everyone should man up and "let boys be boys." But show a loving gay couple with their children and it's a national crisis that needs to be addressed and suppressed.
The idea of religious freedom was so that the government would not oppress people. Yet now it is being used to oppress certain demographics by some people. Should the baker have made the cake for the gay couple? Should the Red Hen have served Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Should Spotify keep content from PragerU? The answer is that it should be up to the individual business. If they want to turn away money, that is their right. It is the right of these groups to espouse their views but at the end of the day, it should not be a religious or legal matter.
It's a matter of capitalism. Survival of the fittest. If a company or individual chooses not to take the money of a patron for any reason, then simply go to someone who will. Spread the word and those who agree with you will stop going to that establishment. However, coloring it as a religious issue makes it out to be something that it is not. Discriminating against someone based on religion means that the religion is full of hate and should not be followed or it is being intentionally misrepresented by those who are teaching it.
Stop with the faux outrage when someone denies service to a member of your preferred political party. The hypocrisy is nauseating and all the anger does is to add negativity to a society already full of it.