>>94171217>Something along those lines, yeah. Change in political climate the big one.
Ok but you need to be specific, what about the "political climate" actually prevents the example from being legal under the various religious freedoms proposals?>if the police are as evil as you say they are
Just stop, I've said absolutely nothing about police. That's completely separate from what I was talking about although police would also be affected by such religious freedom measures.>Believe it or not, that was actually on YOUR side! Whatever Trump says before, heck, what he got elected on may mean nothing because he could just be saying it to get elected, just like Obama dug up dirt on Hillary to get elected before becoming her greatest ally.
Stop shitposting about politics with trump and obama, none of that changes the facts of the law.
If you want to attack a strawman to feel smart and skilled then just reply to yourself, don't use me as a prop.
If you want to have an actual conversation and have me to believe you're not just shitposting to be edgy then you need to actually respond to the things I say and not just your imagination that you put in my mouth.>these media companies and their pawns have every reason to lie
If you honestly can't see the irony in this after all you implications of what other people say just being conspiracy hysteria then you're a hypocrite.
There are multiple proposals floating around and I could fill the thread finding and posting every one for you but they all revolve around allowing people to discriminate if they have strongly held religious beliefs on the topic.
That's how it works, that's how you protect poor cake shop owners from gay tyranny, you allow discrimination. None of the proposals that I've seen are specifically about cake, none of them even mention it.
I mean, even if you don't trust whatever sources what exactly do YOU think the religious freedoms proposals are?