They... small town, clueless people... made the mistake of answering a "gotcha" hypothetical question from a reporter about serving a gay wedding. They never once discriminated against anyone, never once denied service to a single homosexual person. If they did, the law would have dealt with the civil rights issue.
But you and your PC bros think the appropriate response is to destroy their livelihoods and business through guerrilla warfare even though they never once violated anyone's rights. To be clear, they said they'd serve anyone but per their religious stance probably wouldn't want to participate in a gay wedding. Phrased perfectly from a media critic's critique of the reporting and subsequent PC lynch mob:
Whoa!!! Back up cowboy, I didn't say that I agree with any of the PC topics like safe spaces, white privilege, etc. So cool it with the attacks. I certainly didn't ever tweet or post anything to attack those people, so quit putting words in my mouth.
Secondly, It's not a PC issue... sorry if you disagree, but I don't see it that way. They said they wouldn't serve gay people and gay people got pissed. They weren't "triggered" or felt like they were attacked by "micro-aggressions". It was a legitimate dispute that brought the topic into the forefront. I'm sure people on both sides said a bunch of stupid stuff on social media, but it doesn't make it PC issue.
So you think the appropriate response to answering a hypothetical question is extra-judicial justice in the form of:
1) Death threats.
2) Online harassment.
3) Phone sabotage.
SMH.
Nope, I certainly don't. But that kind of stuff came from both sides and again... this wasn't about privilege, or aggression, or safe spaces or sensitivity or respect. It was about whether gay people should legally be able to be denied service. A legitimate argument to be discussed either way. Certainly not some off beat crazy topic that nobody could possibly be offended by. Under this definition, any civil rights issue could be twisted into "PC non-sense".
