zlacker

Sure, I wouldn't want anyone denying me service because they disagree with how I dress or other actions that are otherwise harmless. That being said, there is an incredibly wide divide between "I casually disapprove of your actions, but I will serve you anyway" and "your actions serve to strategically terrorize, harm, and silence minorities and those without the ability to effectively defend or represent themselves, and I will serve you anyway despite knowing that my service will strengthen your ability to do so."

>>kuyan+(OP)
People who oppose abortions (at least the vocal ones) don't "casually disapprove" of abortions. Some of them call it baby-murder. They could add that it harms and silences babies and those without the ability to effectively defend or represent themselves.

The CCP's position seems to be that anything vaguely resembling disrespect of the CCP or their leader will lead to revolution, and therefore must be suppressed with whatever means necessary.

It's generally possible for people to see small, seemingly-harmless, and sometimes-unintentional actions as being part of / enabling / normalizing some terrible threat, which must therefore be burned down, and anyone who opposes such burning must themselves be burned too. I think this happened with the Inquisitions, for example.

It doesn't solve the issue to say "the different political factions will judge for themselves which infractions against their beliefs are harmless". People are very capable of inflaming their own political passions to cast any issue as being the first step towards the end of the world. It only works if there is some common, overarching framework that the different factions agree on. If the common foundation is democracy, then I think that framework would probably be "that which the law allows is permissible; peacefully advocating your policies is permissible; if you think the law is wrong, advocate to change the law". Civil disobedience is a step outside that framework, but (by design) one of the most harmless.