From what I've seen over the last few years, this pretty much gets right to the heart of how this kind of push to shape discourse and control what's possible to

From what I've seen over the last few years, this pretty much gets right to the heart of how this kind of push to shape discourse and control what's possible to say is justified: the people pushing for it really, truly believe that whatever moral beliefs are currently the norm amongst the (narrow, geographically, socially, religiously and racially unrepresentative) community of people campaigning for this are the one objectively correct moral framework and that anyone who deviates from it is a morally bankrupt monster who is treating others as subhuman. What makes this particularly interesting is that those beliefs actually vary a lot more than the people pushing for this realize. There's actually this argument that they shouldn't have to spell out what the correct beliefs actually are to justify this since they're obvious to everyone, and any demand to be specific is just an attempt by wrongthinkers to pretend they don't know why they're supporting evil. This means any differences only get discovered when that specific situation comes up, and can just get pinned on the other side being evil monsters masquerading as decent people when an unreconciled divide does appear. Also, they change over time rapidly enough that the mandatory non-bigoted views from even a few years ago are beyond the pale in critical ways now.