The only insults being thrown around here is Elaine suggesting that if opinions vary from hers, Freedom of Speech is BS and no longer a constitutional right. Providing specialized bicycle infrastructure however is NOT a right. Using the tax codes in an attempt to dictate how a person travels by providing taxpayer funded rather than user funded pathways for freeloading bicyclists (along with subsidizing streetcars mostly for affluent neighborhoods) negatively impacts a person’s "basic right" to earn a reasonable living without excessive taxation, put food on the table and make the individual lifestyle/transport choices that fit an their own needs. How would Elaine feel if she was specifically taxed to directly promote heterosexuality over other lifestyles?

The connection here is about Sam’s credibility when using city taxpayer funds to contest a legal process that questions a state issue/process about discrimination (rather than accepting the premise the State Attorney General and the courts will objectively handle it) in one arena, while promoting tax discrimination in different arena closer to home - in other words; trumping another person’s rights when using taxpayer funds to advance a personal agenda.