you should also read the fountainhead and atlas shrugged but those books are both over 500 pages

@Bookworm

What is His flesh?
His Flesh is the Word;
His Blood is the Breath;
Whoever welcomes the Word and the Breath,
They truly received a food, a drink, and a garment.
I pity those who say there is no resurrection.
The flesh does not resurrect,
But what is it that can resurrect,
So that we may revere it?
The Breath animates the flesh;
There is also a light in the flesh: the Logos.
What you say, you say through a body;
You can say nothing outside this body.
You must awaken while in this body,
For existence is done through it:
Resurrect in this life.
-Gospel of Philip

So, as we move away from identity politics and the courts examine what rights come with religious liberty, it begs the question. When is faith-based prejudice permissable? If we permit people the liberty to be themselves but also say we won't protect it, we essentially say it's okay for private individuals to discriminate. How does a country look when we permit restaurants to deny black people service? For hotels to deny two guys to reserve a honeymoon suite? For private hospitals to deny service to a transwoman? For a gym to deny service to a Muslim hijabi?

Do we permit discrimination for non-essential services only? Or can the hospital deny service that conflicts with thier faith based (ie Catholic) charter?

What about government officials? Can they discriminate based thier faith?

How about a small town with one grocer. Can she discriminate and deny service to the known Jew, denying her food? Or can they only discriminate with creative things like cakes but not "off the shelf" things?

I don't see the courts reversing previous precedent directly. What I see them doing is greatly expanding the right of religious freedoms and the right of states to regulate things that are nominally protected by precedent.

For example, marriage equality in the eyes of the Federal govt will remain a thing. But the rights of individuals to deny supporting a gay couple will be greatly expanded. That will open the Pandora's Box of religious exceptions to all antidiscrimination legislation.

Likewise Roe will remain intact but the rights of states under the 10th to regulate the practice of medicine will be emphasized. For example requiring so many support services be available that abortion in a state becomes impractical.

Abortion remains nominally legal in WV, for example, but the regulatory burden on it is such that in practice it's not possible.

>begs the question
>not a circular argument
Pls

Also how many businesses do you think would survive discriminating in a free association system?

Depends on where it is

We've had cases of restaurants denying service to blacks

Yes but how long ago was that?

I can't remember. Maybe three years.

And those businesses would have survived on that basis without legal intervention?

I'm just truly wondering how it will work. I'm accepting it will happen and am looking more now to prepare for it.

Oh I think they'll try to block free association as long as they can

I think local businesses will survive just fine discriminating.

But in the modern age of internet based businesses, motorized vehicles and drone delivery I think the issue is probably overblown

We're seeing it already with GLBT people. That said those gay bastards in CO were asking for a court whipping. :-(

I would also suggest that if you live in a community where everyone has decided to discriminate against you, you're probably better off leaving as it is, even if protected by law

I can imagine how the religious right would respond to christians being "run out of town". The hypocrisy on the right is not less than on the left.

Republicans are starting to get run out

And there are situations where Christians are shit on and or alienated

I'd agree that it's a pointless lose-lose situation when a lone individual tries to impose his will by attacking other people's freedom of association.

I don't buy into all the narratives, but there have been scenarios where that has happened

And that is wrong in my opinion. But I'm preparing for it to be the norm as we seek to make our IRL lives mimic our internet lives. An echo chamber.

tbh I think pulling everyone into the same space was a mistake

you can make an argument for integration humanizing people, for sure, but that's in non hostile contexts

which are basically nonexistent on twitter et al

I think Tim already talked about the right's effort to find a complex response to the left's ostracism of wrongthinkers. The right is still pretty reluctant to isolate and drive out its political opponents.

It's an own goal

the left is pulling an Atheism+ and will eventually be left with too few members to get shit done, so long as everyone keeps challenging the orthodoxy honestly

the difference here is that there's now the threat of violence and job loss, so if everyone who isnt a fucking socialist wants a counter strat, target those issues

Enforcing a cult mindset is definitely a political own goal for the left.

they dont work well as a cult tbh, that's the primary issue

>these people claim to love Star Wars
>ANH sums up the issue with their plan
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wntX-a3jSY>

I think the right's best response to the left's tactic of trying to deplatform and financially ruin non-leftists is for the the right to create parallel institutions from the ground up.