The slipperiest kind of argument is the slippery slope — the argument that while Proposition A might not be so bad in and of itself, it could lead to worse things.

That’s the kind of argument the left is now using against a Texas House bill that would seek to prevent the kinds of theoretical conflicts we’ve seen elsewhere, conflicts between religions liberties and civil rights. Should a baker be required to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, if the baker’s religious beliefs are opposed to same-sex marriage? Can a photographer choose not to shoot a same-sex wedding? Is this discrimination?

The problem with both sides of this argument is that no one has been hurt. There’s no tort — there’s no documented event, in which anyone has gone cakeless or unphotographed through a wedding.

So lacking any real-world examples demonstrating why that Texas House bill would be a bad idea, the left is making things up.

“Today, a bill under consideration in the Texas House State Affairs Committee would give religiously affiliated entities like hospitals and child welfare organizations authority to discriminate against almost any Texas family, two of the state’s leading religious liberties organizations warn,” the Texas Freedom Network claimed in a news release.

The ACLU added, “It would allow any religiously affiliated entity to pick and choose which lawful marriages it will recognize for any purpose. That would open the door to discrimination even in secular contexts, not just against same-sex couples, but also against interfaith couples, couples that include a previously divorced spouse and even interracial couples.”

The groups provided a helpful list of things that could happen.

“A religiously affiliated adoption agency could refuse to place a child with an interfaith couple, regardless of the best interests of the child,” they claim. “A religious hospital could deny a legally married man the ability to make medical decisions for his spouse on the grounds that he was previously divorced. A faith-based social service organization that accepts tax dollars — like a homeless shelter or food bank — could decline to serve interracial families.”

But here’s the thing — none of these things have happened. And there’s no indication they ever would happen.

The fact is that Texas already has a pretty good balance of religious liberty and civil rights. The state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a well-written law. According to Texas Lawyer magazine, the law “prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person’s free exercise of religion unless the government can show the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.”

Long ago, the state decided that preventing discrimination is a “compelling governmental interest.” And nothing has changed.

There’s really no need for that Texas House bill, or several others like it.

The Texas Association of Business points out that Indiana is still suffering economic backlash for the way it handled its situation.

Both sides are guilty of worrying about things that haven’t happened, and probably never will happen.

But that’s where the slippery slope will get you.