There are so many stories like this. A restaurant refusing to serve Trump supporters:
Other restaurants have done the same.
Now, so many entertainers are balking at appearing at the Trump Inauguration. They are even FAKING stories about being forced to entertain. Consider this From Tammy Bruce at the Washington Times:
It had been announced the Radio City Rockettes, you see, would be performing at the Donald Trump Inaugural. One Rockette vented her distress on Instagram, writing that she was “embarrassed and disappointed,” and that Mr. Trump “stands for everything we’re against.”Frankly, I wouldn't want to eat or be entertained by someone who demonstrates hatred for me just because of my political views. But then, why shouldn't those liberal businesses be held to the same standard they demand for the rest of us?
That post was quickly deleted, but ultimately, a media frenzy ensued over an allegation that the dancers would have to perform at the inauguration, whether they liked it or not, or lose their jobs.
That ended up being fake news promoted by one woman on Facebook, not associated with anyone involved, and unaware of the fact that Rockette participation in the inaugural event is completely voluntary. Moreover, they had more dancers volunteering than available slots for the Inaugural gig, so no one will be dancing “with tears in their eyes,” as the one gloomy Rockette dramatically predicted on her Instagram.
During the brief hubbub, actors and other performers understandably came out in support of the dancers’ right to refuse to perform if an event violated their conscience. I also believe there should be an escape clause in cases such as this allowing a performer flexibility. After all, who wants anyone to be forced to do something against their conscience?
Yet it’s fair to say the same liberals who support the Rockettes’ right to not perform are the same people who have no problem with Christian businesses being attacked for declining to participate in something that violates their conscience and faith. In their cases, the refusal to cater or bake a cake for a gay wedding.
While the environments may be completely different, the larger principle is exactly the same: Why should one type of person be supported for refusing to participate in something antithetical to her values while another is not and even organized and legislated against?
This is the conundrum liberals have created by setting a standard that says Christians should not allowed to decline work due to their values but a liberal dancer should be. The question for liberals now is: Do we want Americans to accept the notion that some people are more equal than others, and deserve more protection and support than those who refuse to conform?