Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
b) Words sure don't seem to have definitive meanings. Look at all the different definitions people are operating off of just in this one thread. Are all these people wrong or bad?
It isn't a question of good or bad, but some of them are certainly wrong, yes. Tolerance and acceptance are not synonymous. And while it's "tolerance" that the SJWs preach, what they're really demanding and enforcing is acceptance. We can be tolerant of homosexuals/cross-dressers, etc. by ignoring them and/or not associating with them, but we're not permitted to do that. We are being forced to associate with them. Do you not see the distinction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiaLia
c) There is not only one alternative - to give up the business. There are many, many, options and choices open and flourishing in the US that can lead to success for business owners. This country is now and has been since its inception, built for business. Arguments about this can be defeatist, anti-capitalist, victimist and hoarder-ish. But that's just my tolerance meter talking -- I accept that it might not be worth 2 cents to others.
I don't think you're following here. When a bakery owner is forced to either provide services to a homosexual "wedding" or face crippling legal action, he can either comply with the demand of acceptance or give up his livelihood. Again, that's no choice at all.
The problem with your premise is that the word tolerance predates the coining of political correctness as a term, so you may want to revise your analysis.
No need to revise anything.
My viewpoint just doesn't agree with yours. Simple.
I would never force my lifestyle on anyone through legislation (except for one thing, but that is for another thread )
But who has ever tried to "force their lifestyle on anyone by legislation"? That would mean forcing someone else to live by YOUR lifestyle rules. Those who claim that, for example, legalizing same-sex marriage is somehow "forcing" something on anybody else are very wrong, because nobody is being forced to marry someone of the same sex; it simply opens up options for those who do. If you are in a heterosexual marriage, you will still be in a heterosexual marriage after such legalization happens, no different.
You don't like it, you don't have to do it or even approve of it. But unless you're in a same-sex relationship, your life does not change one iota by John and Joe across the street getting legally married.
That's just one example, but it seems that any time someone else is given rights or privileges they were previously denied, there is someone who claims it is being "forced on them" when in fact the latter's life has not changed in the least.
Tolerance isn't good enough anymore. You have to accept and embrace or be ravaged for it. You are a "hater" (a new silly word), a bigot, etc. unless you embrace and support everything that the media feeds you. I am surprised how many people don't even know the difference between the two.
I know it may seem like this on some university campuses, but it really is NOT that way in the prevailing culture. We are still free to have opinions about other people and how they live their lives, we just cannot harass them nor deny them services if we're a business based solely on this aspect of them that we don't like. Fox News way overamplifies the extreme cases and makes it sound like the entire world is forcing everyone to believe certain things, but we do not have a thought police who will exterminate you for thinking a certain way about anybody.
However, while you get to have your opinion about certain demographics, similarly, others are allowed to have an opinion about you and if that means calling you a "hater" or a "bigot", that's what free speech means. You certainly don't believe we should not have the right to make such comments, do you? Most of us are adult enough to ignore it when we're called things like "haters"; it's certainly no kind of "persecution" as Fox and some of the other outlets would have us believe.
Sorry to tell ya, friend, but the law(society) determines what you'll tolerate. And you'll do so or face the consequences.
With "the consequences being "someone might call me a "hater" or a "bigot"!
Boo-hoo, grow up. You can think what you want, but people are similarly allowed to have their opinion of you for expressing yours. Grow a thicker skin if you think being called a "hater" is affecting your life or safety in any way whatsoever. I guarantee you, those minorities that you don't want to "tolerate" hear far worse terms on a daily basis, and in virtually all cases, sometimes their actual safety HAS been threatened. There is a difference between name-calling that defines an entire demographic based on what they are, and a term like "hater" or "bigot" based on what someone thinks. Nobody has ever been evicted from their home or chased down in the street by people calling "bigot!"
Btw, I came from a country where 'tolerance" was mostly unknown. People will tell you to your face what they think about you. Will straighten your unruly behavior out in the street. Chastise you. People you never knew, passers by. With general "politically correct" sissiness in the country, I sort of miss this militancy.
That all depends on what you mean by "unruly behavior". Disturbing the peace? Fighting? Causing harm to someone else? Yes, they will, and should, get called out on it.
Expressing themselves peacefully in a way YOU don't like" None of your business, sorry. We have what's called "manners" here.
It isn't a question of good or bad, but some of them are certainly wrong, yes. Tolerance and acceptance are not synonymous. And while it's "tolerance" that the SJWs preach, what they're really demanding and enforcing is acceptance. We can be tolerant of homosexuals/cross-dressers, etc. by ignoring them and/or not associating with them, but we're not permitted to do that. We are being forced to associate with them. Do you not see the distinction?
I don't think you're following here. When a bakery owner is forced to either provide services to a homosexual "wedding" or face crippling legal action, he can either comply with the demand of acceptance or give up his livelihood. Again, that's no choice at all.
Exactly. The way I see it is either/or is not a choice, it's a demand. (Need examples? Open a history book on math, sciences, technology, art, economics. Notice the actual changes over time in thinking and approaches re what has to be and what does not have to be, and re "either/or".) It looks like we don't have to buy into a demand of the moment and we don't have to feel forced into any acceptance of some outside demand. We've shown again and again that we're not that boxed in.
How exactly are you being forced to associate with gay people?
Did you not read the rest of the post? Again, when a business is required to serve homosexuals or face legal action, he is being forced to associate with them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
