Get a load of THIS!
The above linked article seems quite clearly to suggest that if one thing happens, such as state level enactment of laws that copy the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, then all sorts of nasty will follow. The argument is that by allowing businesses to opt out of providing their products or services for sale to those who seek them for celebrations of homosexual "weddings", then obviously homosexuals will be discriminated against when seeking to engage in all other sorts of business, such as, for example, buying groceries. That sounds very much like the slippery slope argument that is considered fallacious when used by opponents of pro-homosexual legislation (especially same-sex weddings--SSM). Opponents believe, with much justification now that we're beginning to see manifestations, that other groups, such as those favoring polygamous unions, would seek legal recognition for their unions based on the same arguments that have led to the same for homosexuals.
But here's the obvious difference the homosexual activist pretends doesn't exist: The argument of the SSM opponent is that ANY union that does not meet the normal criteria for state licensing of marital unions (one man/one woman, not closely related, of legal age, neither currently married) fails to qualify for a license and state recognition, while no one who meets the criteria, which is the definition of marriage (legally, up until now in some states), is denied a license. Thus, ejecting any criterion is justification for ejecting any other and really, mandates that the ejection of any other be given the same consideration since the arguments for doing so were used by the homosexuals in ejecting the criterion that had prevented the licensing of their unions. And again, as we are now seeing the polygamous push for the same considerations, the "slippery slope" argument used by SSM opponents is clearly not fallacy at all, but coming to fruition.
However, the activist wants to insist that because a person of faith (or principle, for that matter) may discriminate against behaviors, then that will lead to that person of faith discriminating against the person who engages in that behavior. But that would only be likely if the person engaging in whatever behavior offends the person of faith intends that every business transaction is for the purpose of enhancing an offending behavior he in which he will engage, AND makes that intention known to the business person of faith.
It's ludicrous and frankly, a dishonest portrayal of the intention of people of faith who wish to live out their lives and conduct business according to the tenets of their faith. While it may be true that some would try to use a religious exemption to avoid doing business with an Irishman, one would be very hard pressed to prove that this is common amongst people of faith in general. It just doesn't happen as seems to be the truth in every case of this nature that has been brought to light. None of the people forced to defend their Constitutionally protected rights have demonstrated the will to discriminate against anyone simply for being who or what they are. They refused a very specific request for a very specific reason that should be respected by the very people who insist that everyone should respect their immoral beliefs and push for legislation that forces the country to do so.
The linked article is simply another illustration of the dishonesty so necessary in achieving the goals of the Agenda That Doesn't Exist.