That’s what I thought back in ‘06 when all the gay marriage initiatives were being voted down.
But the Left never gives up. They just doubled-down and kept judge-shopping.
I’m afraid the same is going to happen here.
It's never been a problem in terms of feeling threatened, and during my 20s, I had no issue whatever talking to them in a general give-and-take. But, the one belief I've always held from the very beginning is that gays are certainly screwed up in the head. The most amusing aspect is the burning desire to present them as 'normal', which is the furthest possible thing from the truth. As someone posted upstream, the whole gay rights movement isn't about gays being accepted - they couldn't possibly give a sh!t that normal think they're weird. In fact, they celebrate being extreme. Rather, it's yet another tool used by cultural marxists in which to divide the people.
---
All right, on to the essay. I posted this on another thread, but it may still be applicable. Kurt focuses on taking umbrage, which is his game in the publishing business. But the real nuts & bolts come down to who has the activism power. Kennedy's decision evened the playing regulatory field, so now I assume the advantage swings to Xians. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I am a devout atheist.)
---
Every now and then I pause to consider that maybe, just maybe, the proglibs are right and conservatives really are stupid. Why must everything be presented in brute force fashion, when a subtle, yet distinct turn of phrase/decision accomplishes the same effect? It's like Micky D loaded with HFCs, salt, sawdust and Dog knows what else vs a nicely prepared meal with quality ingredients. They are both "food" but one is sophisticated & subtle, while the other is obvious yet garbage.
For those that don't get it, this is the crucial point: Kennedy mentioned the commission disallowed claims against 3 other bakers who refused to create products with pro-Christian messages. Using that simple formula, we can logically conclude that there are, on average, probably around 3x as many strident proglib businesses vs devout religious operations.
Since the ruling hinged on violations of equal treatment, and specifically addressed the state's attempt towards determining 'offensive speech' (religion = bad, LGBT = good), that leaves only two options: enforce equally or eliminate religious test.
What happens if state commissions like CO (and presumably others of similar nature in CA, NY, IL, etc) decide to apply equal treatment? Wanna take a look at that 3x factor above again? Consider the unifying force of church groups and other activist organizations that begin filing orders with various businesses with religious themes and messages. Gay interior decorators forced to prepare banners saying homosexuality is a sin, deli owners compelled to provide services to a church group whose theme is "all non-believers go to hell?"
Does anyone get where this will end up? It will result in the very people who enjoyed wielding state power against weaker, out-group opponents to now be hoist by their own petard. Soon enough, you'll see these commissions each get out of the religious test business, thereby opening up any business to refuse to serve anyone to whom they are morally opposed.
Same exact effect of supporting the 1A, yet done is subtle fashion that is only fully realized once people noodle through what it really means. The LGBT certainly know, which is why they are depressed from experiencing a huge, major defeat.