Of course, as we all know, a lot of individual jurisdictions are already at the point Brad Slager raises concerns about.

But not all of them.
Yet.

https://redstate.com/bradslager/2026/01/20/the-don-lemon-church-incursion-could-serve-as-a-tipping-point-for-the-direction-of-the-country-n2198328

Absolutely true, and not just in Minnesota.
It’s amazing how many stories in the news are either focused on showing the two tiers, or on denying the two tiers, or is peripherally connected to the two tiers.

One would think we were back in the days of the medieval barons and serfs, with a very odd choice of who is in each group.

I knew you were talking about the excerpt, and I’m sure the author at Red State, Teri Christoph, knows the ship sailed long ago. I supposed she just wanted to evoke that particular meme about “your terms are acceptable,” which I have seen used in a large number of contexts.

One of my favorites is the Lefty complaining, “If only there were some way to make men accept their responsibility for the women they get pregnant and the child!”
Every pro-life person knows the acceptable terms are getting married before you have sex.

That was back when Democrats knew that only biological women could get pregnant, and assumed she didn’t just abort the child without telling the father.

Make that at least two and more since most commenters here read everything.
Still miniscule in the context of even the USA’s actively engaged news readers, but better than zero!

Amaze your lefty friends with your new found knowledge about the Rotfrontkämpferbund (especially if you can say it with an authentic German growl), and add the remark by Skip: “Antifa are Marxists to Anarchists, they are using Communists term for anyone not a Communist in 1940s”

We have seen much too much of both your clauses, but the latter one is egregiously stupid in the long run.
See Ben David’s comment, and the reply to mine by Niketas.

Good thing it hasn’t gone supercritical; all their heads would explode in a millisecond.

That critical mass of the Minnesota population had a fizzle when Saint Sparkles won her FAFO prize. No matter how hard the leftist media has tried, facts keep coming out to moderate their planned explosion of popular rage.

Invading churches, randomly harassing and threatening the general public aren’t a winning strategy, no matter how virtuous you are.

As to the left’s stranglehold on the narrative:

What is that thing that replaced Twitter, and how is Hollywood doing? And of course who believes CNN or the other alphabet babblers? Case in point lynchings in Columbus Ohio in the 1950s recalled yesterday on air. Too much BS, beyond plausible deniability.

That ship already sailed years ago: he called for DOJ investigation on a protest OUTSIDE a mosque in 2015. As AG in 2020, he submitted a brief on behalf of a mosque that “felt intimidated” by people recording video.

“It’s my job to help all Minnesotans live with dignity and respect. Living with dignity and respect looks like being able to go to any public place you choose, including your house of worship, without the fear or threat that you’ll be harassed, intimidated, or persecuted for who you are or whom you pray to. I’m defending the constitutionality of our law that protects Minnesotans of all faiths and backgrounds from that kind of harassment. Minnesotans want everyone to live with the same dignity and respect that they want for themselves.”

In the memorandum, Attorney General Ellison argues that contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, Minnesota’s anti-harassment law “is not unconstitutionally overbroad because any protected speech that may be regulated by the statute is insubstantial when compared with the statute’s plainly legitimate regulation of harassing and stalking conduct,” nor is it “void for vagueness in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because it makes it reasonably clear what conduct falls within its scope.”

Because the law regulates conduct, not speech, it does not violate the First Amendment. The law is also content-neutral. This means that it “applies to Plaintiff’s behavior of following, monitoring, or pursuing another without regard to the content, topic, or viewpoint of any message Plaintiff intends to convey. For example, if Plaintiff uses a recording device to monitor individuals at Dar al-Farooq in a manner that violates the Harassment Statute it would apply whether she intended to use those recordings to create a blog post about how Dar al-Farooq is violating zoning regulations, a story about the benefits of religious education, or a movie about the history of Bloomington.”

I know you’re just quoting someone, so it’s not aimed at you, but it’s way past time to play “what if the roles were reversed”. They have been, the two-tier system of justice is already in place in Minnesota.