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.
big·ot·ry
noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
So you think it's perfectly acceptable to be intolerant toward those who hold different opinions from you?
Read my post carefully.
I said it was acceptable to be intolerant of BIGOTRY. I did not say it was acceptable to be intolerant of bigots. There is a difference. I know it's hard for some folks to understand.
Of course I am tolerant of people with different opinions. We are all entitled to have opposing opinions. By being intolerant of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia I am saying crimes against people, discrimination against people, disrespecting people, oppressing people, persecuting people is unacceptable and intolerable.
Get it?
Black folks have a right to oppose racism ... racist laws ... racist actions. Jewish folks are perfectly justified in protesting Neo-Nazi activities in their communities.
Hold any opinion you have, defend your opinions in the press, even shout them from your rooftop. Engage in an act of hate, prejudice, discrimination, or bigotry? You think you are shielded from a response? You insult and outrage people you think they are not allowed to respond???
The "religious belief" over state and federal law flood gate. Why should it only be in regards to public accommodations? Why not every other law? Why not employment, zoning, drug use, speed limits, child abuse, pretty much any law could be nullified if claiming "religious belief" could trump state and federal law.
This could do far beyond gays and cakes. What's to stop me from claiming "religious belief" when I get caught speeding? Or for parking tickets, or even paying taxes?
I really don't see the slippery slope in this scenario. We're not talking about changing laws. I see this as more of a philosophical discussion. The op is about intolerance towards intolerance. There are laws in place to protect people from discrimination. What we are discussing has more to do with whether or not it's right to expect that everyone is tolerant of certain things, gay marriage was the example provided, but its ok to be intolerant of people's religious beliefs, commonly, Christianity is the one that I've noticed people who yell about tolerance having no problem at all with showing complete intolerance for. I find the intolerance for intolerance to be hypocritical.
I really don't see the slippery slope in this scenario. We're not talking about changing laws. I see this as more of a philosophical discussion. The op is about intolerance towards intolerance. There are laws in place to protect people from discrimination. What we are discussing has more to do with whether or not it's right to expect that everyone is tolerant of certain things, gay marriage was the example provided, but its ok to be intolerant of people's religious beliefs, commonly, Christianity is the one that I've noticed people who yell about tolerance having no problem at all with showing complete intolerance for. I find the intolerance for intolerance to be hypocritical.
And as I said I can disagree with someones beliefs or opinions or stances and still sell them goods and services. It seems that there is only one side refusing goods and services based on their beliefs and passing laws that would allow it only in that specific case (see MS law).
You don't see laws being passed that would allow people to turn away Christians from public accommodations, only "Christian values" legislators passing laws that allow discrimination BY Christians.
Which is more intolerant? Pushing for laws that would allow one to discriminate against those they don't agree with, or pushing for laws that don't allow anyone to discriminate?
I'm fairly neutral on my position when it comes to gay/straight issues. However, why is it that those who scream 'tolerance' aren't willing to be tolerant of others' view if they are different?
If someone doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding for whatever reason, is that being intolerant? Yes. But, for those people that are going to give said bakery a hard time for their decision, isn't that also being intolerant?
This is a common question and the usual response is to ask this question: should one be tolerant of intolerance?
The question has a more ambiguous answer when you look at smaller things, like gay people not being made wedding cakes. They can go to another bakery and everyone can hold religious views. The counter argument of course being that you couldn't refuse service based on other things, like race or gender. The counter argument to that usually has something to do with religious objections to specific things, like gay marriage. I'd argue that technically, only gay sex is prohibited in the Bible, but I won't go any further with this argument since it's not really the point. But you get the idea; the answer on an issue like this isn't necessarily obvious.
But what if it's a Nazi party running for election in the US? Do we tolerate people advocating for violence against Jews or other ethnic minorities? Does being tolerant literally mean being completely indifferent or accepting to all ideas?
To figure this out, I usually ask why tolerance is of value. Tolerance is about making sure people can work together and progress society and humanity forward. I would then say that tolerance of different ideas is important, unless that idea is in direct conflict with that mission. There are some errors with this theory, that I recognize, but I also think it's an idea with fewer errors than anything else. The big error of course is that what constitutes as getting in the way. Some could take that too far to mean all members of a certain party or religion or race, which is problematic. But assuming someone takes the principle of toleration seriously, most would recognize that this is almost always unjust except in the most severe of circumstances, like the Nazis.
In regards to the gay marriage issue, I think it's fine to belief gay marriage is wrong. To an extent, I guess it's ok to think homosexual sex is wrong. But treating gay people as anything different than you'd treat anyone else is unacceptable. To treat gay people as lesser goes against the principle of toleration.
And as I said I can disagree with someones beliefs or opinions or stances and still sell them goods and services. It seems that there is only one side refusing goods and services based on their beliefs and passing laws that would allow it only in that specific case (see MS law).
You don't see laws being passed that would allow people to turn away Christians from public accommodations, only "Christian values" legislators passing laws that allow discrimination BY Christians.
Which is more intolerant? Pushing for laws that would allow one to discriminate against those they don't agree with, or pushing for laws that don't allow anyone to discriminate?
I can also disagree with a person's beliefs or opinions, stances and still sell them goods or services. I'm not gay but I support same sex marriage. I'm not religious but I respect the fact that people who are very religious have strong convictions that they feel they must live by. I don't agree with the baker's decision to deny the wedding cake to the gay couple but I understand his reasoning and I respect his decision. I also know that there are thousands of other bakeries in the area that would be thrilled to have this couple's business.
There have been a small handful of cases in the US that I've heard of where services were denied to same sex couples in relation to their wedding where they were refused service due to the owner's religious views. Have there been a lot more that I just didn't hear about? From my standpoint this is not a huge or even a big problem.
What specific laws are you concerned about being pushed by Christian legislators?
I can also disagree with a person's beliefs or opinions, stances and still sell them goods or services. I'm not gay but I support same sex marriage. I'm not religious but I respect the fact that people who are very religious have strong convictions that they feel they must live by. I don't agree with the baker's decision to deny the wedding cake to the gay couple but I understand his reasoning and I respect his decision. I also know that there are thousands of other bakeries in the area that would be thrilled to have this couple's business.
There have been a small handful of cases in the US that I've heard of where services were denied to same sex couples in relation to their wedding where they were refused service due to the owner's religious views. Have there been a lot more that I just didn't hear about? From my standpoint this is not a huge or even a big problem.
What specific laws are you concerned about being pushed by Christian legislators?
The NC law that removed all city ordinances offering protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The MS law that flat out allows discrimination against gays even by government officials and state funded orgs.
New ones pop up all the time but those are the two most recent.
There was a case where a business owner claimed religious belief in denying blacks service. Should he have been allowed to discriminate based on his beliefs? Should they have just gone on to someone that wanted their business?
The "religious belief" over state and federal law flood gate. Why should it only be in regards to public accommodations? Why not every other law? Why not employment, zoning, drug use, speed limits, child abuse, pretty much any law could be nullified if claiming "religious belief" could trump state and federal law.
This could do far beyond gays and cakes. What's to stop me from claiming "religious belief" when I get caught speeding? Or for parking tickets, or even paying taxes?
You are confusing the protection of civil rights with the right to break laws that are there for our public safety and apply equally to all of us for that reason.
Discrimination hurts people who are not treated fairly, equally. That harm to others is what these anti-discrimination laws are intended to prevent. Speeding because that's what your God commands also poses a threat/harm to others, so in the same way, for somewhat the same reason(s), those laws are upheld as well.
How we are protected from the law (or employers) when it comes to our faith ultimately boils down to who is being harmed and in what way. If not for the sake of public safety or the broader social good, the effort is to respect everyone's civil rights, regardless of race, religion or sexual persuasion.
You are confusing the protection of civil rights with the right to break laws that are there for our public safety and apply equally to all of us for that reason.
Discrimination hurts people who are not treated fairly, equally. That harm to others is what these anti-discrimination laws are intended to prevent. Speeding because your God tells you to also poses a threat/harm to others, so in the same way, for somewhat the same reason(s), those laws are upheld as well.
How we are protected from the law (or employers) when it comes to our faith ultimately boils down to who is being harmed and in what way. If not for the sake of public safety or the broader social good, the effort is to respect everyone's civil rights, regardless of race, religion or sexual persuasion.
All laws should apply to all of us equally, there shouldn't be a "religious exemption" to violate generally applicable laws.
It is illegal for me to refuse to serve a Christian based on their religion, but it is not illegal for them to refuse me service based on who I married.
Open carry is perfectly legal in my state and I have seen people carrying in all kinds of stores. Not once have I seen someone denied service for carrying.
Come out to San Diego and see how that works out for you.
All laws should apply to all of us equally, there shouldn't be a "religious exemption" to violate generally applicable laws.
It is illegal for me to refuse to serve a Christian based on their religion, but it is not illegal for them to refuse me service based on who I married.
All laws DO apply equally to all of us, or that's the intent here in America anyway.
Not sure I understand your example, or maybe we need a better one, but yes, it is illegal not to serve someone in a public establishment because of their religion. Also, it is illegal to refuse service to someone in a public place based on who you married (unless you married Charles Manson and he broke out of jail).
Or so the law tends to lean or change anyway, and why we find "all men's clubs" literally and figuratively being infiltrated by women, the military slowly coming up to speed on this, for example, with gays as well.
Bottom line, what we believe in the privacy of our home need not manifest itself by way of discrimination in public. Let us all be "color blind" to these differences in terms of how we treat one another, and let's leave it to God to address the right or wrong of how people live their life and what they choose to believe, or not.
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.
