> A person is on the street and talking about killing unbelievers. Should it matter if the speaker believes are from a system that the government has on a list

> A person is on the street and talking about killing unbelievers. Should it matter if the speaker believes are from a system that the government has on a list of protected class, or is the single critical fact from a legal perspective that the speaker is encouraging violence? No of course not, and both American and European law handle this case in my understanding. Inciting violence isn’t “cancel culture”. > Let take a second example. A store employee is insulting a customer by calling them a penniless rat. Should such insult be treated different from the employer then if they used a racial insult? Yes, absolutely. Again, it isn’t the demographic that makes the difference, it’s the attribute used to define the demographic. There are a few attributes that the American government has decided are worth intervening by force to stop. In this case, The shop keep can condescend to the potential customer, and that customer is free to tell everyone not to shop at their store as a result, which causes the damages and gives you a right to fire them. Sure. I mean, maybe as an American used to almost no labor protections I don’t understand the question :D But in the case where the employee denied service on the base of race, a protected class, then you have a criminal issue in addition to the civil issue. > Can you think of an example where in a religious context some action should be legal but in a political context should not? I don’t understand the question to be honest.