This is not the only issue on which the outcome-based culture has reared its ugly head. Take the outbreak of bake-me-a-cakeism.
The same small government beliefs that led me to support legalized same-sex marriage well before Hillary Clinton or President Obama prompts me to support the right of Christian bakers or photographers to refuse to participate in gay weddings. But many are unable to see a distinction between being personally open to same-sex marriage and being cool with using government force to compel others to embrace the institution. Even Libertarian Party nominee Garry Johnson has struggled to see this.
In the name of regulating campaign spending, Democrats have been willing to undermine First Amendment protections on freedom of speech. Troublingly for the First Amendment going forward, a Pew Research Center survey found that a shocking 40 percent of millennials say that the government should be able to restrict speech deemed “offensive” to minorities, compared to just 12 percent of those between 70 and 87. The whole point of having free speech rights, of course, is to protect statements that are offensive or unpopular — otherwise such a protection wouldn’t be necessary.
As president, Obama has routinely used executive actions to attempt to implement the agenda that he couldn’t pass through Congress, in many cases simply announcing he won’t enforce laws. Liberals have cheered this on because they wanted to advance their agenda, even though such precedents can be used by a future Republican president.