Whenever controversy arises—like steaming diarrhea out of the toilet of a highway rest stop—you can always count on the
Take Kim Davis. The law changed the duties of her position. She refused to bend, based on religious conviction, and went to jail for it. The strawman arguments amount to "Why do you hate Christians," and "Why do you hate gay people?" When the question should be: at what point does a person's religious freedom end?
It's dicey because it requires something both sides don't want to admit; that you either have no respect for another person's religious beliefs or that you don't care about discriminating against a minority group. (Side note: you obviously cannot kill someone if your religion says so. But scripture has been used to justify everything from banning interracial marriage to slavery. But discrimination? As someone once said, "People don't derive their values from scripture. They insert their values into scripture." Let's be honest, if you oppose gay marriage it's because you don't like gay people.)
Same thing with abortion. If you boil down the debate to a single image, that image is a fetus. That's what gets aborted. Pro-choicers try to turn that image into a woman, saying "this is who's rights you are violating." Pro-lifers try to turn that image into a baby, saying "this is who you are killing." Once again, people refuse to actually have the same argument.
