Let's assume the FBI knew this guy was intending to fly a gryocopter into no-fly space. Let's further assume based on reading this guy's emails,or tapping this guy's phone, or rummaging through his trash, or his refrigerator, or installing secret spy devices in his underpants to measure his potential for Communist sympathies, that they decided he's a legitimate protestor and not a home-grown terrorist. In that case, shooting him out of the sky risks public out-cry. Particularly since the air-defense systems around DC no-fly zones are SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES. Weee bit of overkill there. So what's less headache? Shoot the kook down or let the kook have his fifteen minutes of political-stunt-fame and go about your day?
In 2014 a lawsuit was brought a couple who rents their private property to host weddings as side income. A lesbian couple tried to rent the property for the day for their wedding.. Prior to the contract being finalized, the property owners discovered their would-be clients were were lesbians (presumably they had only talked with one partner up to that point). The property owners declined to host the wedding on religious grounds but said they were willing to let the couple use the farm for a reception if they so wished since a reception was non-religious in nature. The lesbian couple sued, won, and the property owners were fined 10-grand and forced to pay the couple $3000 ($1500 to each partner).
In 2013 the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled a photographer could not decline to photograph a gay marriage ceremony, as declining the work solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the couple was a violation of discrimination law.
One the one hand I believe firmly that people should not be forced to give up their religious or moral beliefs just because they happen to own or run a business. On the other hand I believe public business must serve all equally. I see no good resolution to this.
Ah. I've never heard that term used before and Google was returning some strange results. Thanks for the information.