The Intolerance of 'Tolerance', the Inequality of 'Equality' and Left Wing Hypocrisy

[Town Heretic]

Following on from the title of this thread, I have just two questions I would like to ask. I'm interested to see how others answer these questions. Is 'tolerance' intolerant? Is 'equality' unequal?

By definition, no.

People who espouse left wing political beliefs often see themselves as shining beacons of tolerance.

To the same extent that right wingers often see themselves as shining examples of virtue?

They see themselves at the forefront of the fight for 'equality'.

Or morality on the right.

...Take for example the case of Christianity vs the 'gay rights' movement. In almost all cases, those on the 'tolerant' liberal left side with homosexuals over Christians.

Were those Christians in question are attempting to abrogate or define the rights of others legally from a religious foundation?

In doing this, they become intolerant of those who do not subscribe to homosexual ideology and become complete hypocrites.

Only if the principle is, without caveat, intolerance. I'd suggest that really isn't the case. That it's about discriminatory law and practice, which is a bit different.

The believe that equality should be extended to homosexuals at the expense of the rights of others who do not believe the same as them

I don't think that's their point. And equality being given to a group can't by its nature come at the expense of anyone else who already possesses the same right. What expense?

In doing this, 'equality' treats Christians in an unequal way.

In the sense that denying anyone the right to discriminate against another person does that. And that's really what we're talking about. Not about Christians losing any right they possess, but about us being offended by a minority we find morally objectionable having the same rights...like the Klan.

To look more at a case in point, one can look to the case of Asher's Bakery in Northern Ireland. The Christian owners of the bakery refused to bake a cake with the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage'.

Then they're being goofy. Now if the people wanting the cake had wanted it to say "Asher's Bakery Supports Gay Marriage" it's a different ballgame.

As a result of refusing to write this political slogan on a cake, the bakery are now being prosecuted in the name of 'equality' under equality laws all at the expense of the taxpayer.

Don't know enough about your laws to know what that means, in terms of penalty.

According to those on the left, it is unequal treatment to refuse to write such a slogan.

Unequal in relation to other customers having whatever they want written on a cake?

Yet you can bet your bottom dollar if a Christian had walked into a bakery owned by homosexuals and asked for a cake saying 'marriage should only be between a man and woman for life', the left would be shouting out for the rights of the homosexual bakers to refuse to bake that cake.

Kind of an easy bet though, since it isn't actually happening and so you can assume and assert whatever suits your conclusion as the response. I'd say people who don't agree with the first should find the second objectionable as well and the same law should apply to everyone, which is rather the point of actual equality.

Also, you don't have to be a leftist to support equality under law, thought the extremes tend to be the more vocal proponents/opponents of a any particular law touching on that point.

This is unbalanced, unfair and downright hypocritical. If those on the left wanted true equality, they would argue for the right of both bakers to refuse to write a slogan with which they disagree.

Or, that barring illegal speech, like some profanity, both bakers, assuming they routinely or as a part of their business practice engage in putting messages on cakes, should do that.

If those who claim to be tolerant are intolerant of those who they deem to be intolerant, is that not hypocrisy?

Could be, if the principle is tolerance without regard for particular instead of equality with regard for it.

If those who believe in equality only wish to extend those rights to those who believe how they do to the detriment of those who dissent, is that not hypocrisy?

Sure. And if those who believe in the rule of law only believe in it when it protects and defends their beliefs? Same answer.

What are your thoughts?

Interesting thread. :thumb:

 

[Lon]

And equality being given to a group can't by its nature come at the expense of anyone else who already possesses the same right. What expense?


Sure. And if those who believe in the rule of law only believe in it when it protects and defends their beliefs? Same answer.


Interesting thread. :thumb:

Equality isn't necessitated by the law. We understand, for instance, that kids under age, should not be taking drugs/alcohol. Some differences must be protected under the law. We disagree, but marriage is also one of these.

I believe it is wrong to demand profanity on a cake from a baker opposed to that. The law should not be made to abuse others, in spite of inequality. The freedom outweighs the demand.

 

[quip]

In a nutshell, people are free to pursue their differences provided such doesn't harm the rest of society.

Homosexuals are not free to pursue a legal marriage if Christians have their way. Is this not harming a segment of society?

The difference between your and my advocacy, is that your's harms other human beings.

Harms Christians...in what way...not allowing you to publicly marginalize a segment of society? Seems the opposite case is nearer to the truth.

 

[Town Heretic]

Equality isn't necessitated by the law.

Equality before the law is, or equality in right absent a fairly high hill to climb.

We understand, for instance, that kids under age, should not be taking drugs/alcohol.

Sure. Capacity has a great deal to do with the reasoned discrimination and limitation of right. But we don't disallow contract rights for only the tall or short, or Jewish, or black. It's a recognition of an objective, empirical fact, along with an experiential one.

Some differences must be protected under the law.

Right is the province of people. We protect people and the rights we hold they are born with absent extraordinary conditions that necessitate abrogation or infringement. When you speak to children you're speaking to capacity really. We're protecting them from being exploited.

We disagree, but marriage is also one of these.

I disagree with your foundation, supra. Marriage isn't protected by law, it's defined. And if the definition abrogates the rights of others then the justification for it should meet exacting standard.

I believe it is wrong to demand profanity on a cake from a baker opposed to that.

So do I. And I think it would be a violation of law in most or any jurisdiction that I can think of.

The law should not be made to abuse others,

Which is exactly what discriminatory law often aims to do, or at least the sort that won't find justification on review.

The freedom outweighs the demand.

The interference with freedom and its justification or lack thereof is precisely the point the Court is being asked to address.

 

[rocketman]

The only thing that liberals are tolerant of is the lawlessness of their own.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Following on from the title of this thread, I have just two questions I would like to ask. I'm interested to see how others answer these questions. Is 'tolerance' intolerant? Is 'equality' unequal?

People who espouse left wing political beliefs often see themselves as shining beacons of tolerance. They see themselves at the forefront of the fight for 'equality'. The problem is, those who see themselves as the most tolerant and enlightened people often seem to be completely intolerant of dissent from their ideals and beliefs. Those who see themselves as soldiers for equality see some people as more equal than others.

Take for example the case of Christianity vs the 'gay rights' movement. In almost all cases, those on the 'tolerant' liberal left side with homosexuals over Christians. In doing this, they become intolerant of those who do not subscribe to homosexual ideology and become complete hypocrites. The believe that equality should be extended to homosexuals at the expense of the rights of others who do not believe the same as them. In doing this, 'equality' treats Christians in an unequal way.

To look more at a case in point, one can look to the case of Asher's Bakery in Northern Ireland. The Christian owners of the bakery refused to bake a cake with the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage'. As a result of refusing to write this political slogan on a cake, the bakery are now being prosecuted in the name of 'equality' under equality laws all at the expense of the taxpayer. According to those on the left, it is unequal treatment to refuse to write such a slogan. Yet you can bet your bottom dollar if a Christian had walked into a bakery owned by homosexuals and asked for a cake saying 'marriage should only be between a man and woman for life', the left would be shouting out for the rights of the homosexual bakers to refuse to bake that cake. This is unbalanced, unfair and downright hypocritical. If those on the left wanted true equality, they would argue for the right of both bakers to refuse to write a slogan with which they disagree.

If those who claim to be tolerant are intolerant of those who they deem to be intolerant, is that not hypocrisy? If those who believe in equality only wish to extend those rights to those who believe how they do to the detriment of those who dissent, is that not hypocrisy?

What are your thoughts?

They know they are hypocrites.

 

[Angel4Truth]

So its allowing liberty of thought and expression to deny a christian the right to not engage in speech that they disagree with and not express something morally objectionable to them?

:think:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Um.....because if we allow "I think this is an unjust law" to be a justification to do whatever you want, there's no point in having laws in the first place. :duh:

Then you were ok with homos being jailed for engaging in homosexual acts. It was the law.

You also believe that they should have refrained from being lawbreakers when it was against the law and deserved their punishment.

Thanks!

 

[Lon]

Homosexuals are not free to pursue a legal marriage if Christians have their way. Is this not harming a segment of society?

The problem is what that does and does not entail. There is no way a blended family is the same as an organic one, etc. Such means inequity. That is not what the law guarantees. We all understand this as pertains to minors. They cannot marry. Can they give each other rights under the law? Yeah, it is just strained to call that a marriage.

Harms Christians...in what way...not allowing you to publicly marginalize a segment of society? Seems the opposite case is nearer to the truth.

I think adultery, premarital sex, etc. are bad. Does that marginalize? No, but there are no adultery parades or fornication parades. Because of the pressure, there is an inordinate amount of shove to the push. Shoot, they are ONLY 1% of the population. There are more Mormons than gays. The attention is inordinate and incredibly out of balance.

 

[Nick M]

Um, what exactly do you mean by "subscribe to homosexual ideology"?

Promoting the behavior of sodomy as normal and acceptable. As if you didn't know you perverted fag.

 

[quip]

The problem is what that does and does not entail. There is no way a blended family is the same as an organic one, etc. Such means inequity.

Only through the self-serving lens of a segregating dogma. Such does not define but rather propagates inequality...hence the Christian backlash. Your own dogma has become your greatest obstacle. Let it go.

 

[Lon]

Only through the self-serving lens of a segregating dogma. Such does not define but rather propagates inequality...hence the Christian backlash. Your own dogma has become your greatest obstacle. Let it go.

:dizzy: I'm sorry if you came from a broken home. You are unequivocally incorrect. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a blended family, just that there is inequity and obviously so.

 

[aikido7]

They know they are hypocrites.

I am a hypocrite. As try as I might, I have not yet completely gotten free of it.

Jesus had a lot to say against hypocrisy. And us Gentiles, too, for that matter.

 

[quip]

:dizzy: I'm sorry if you came from a broken home. You are unequivocally incorrect. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a blended family, just that there is inequity and obviously so.

The arrogance of this mindless assertion could be insulting if only it held some validity beyond subjective creed. You're simply reiterating a programmed response...free yourself from the ignorance Lon.

 

[Lon]

The arrogance of this mindless assertion could be insulting if only it held some validity beyond subjective creed. You're simply reiterating a programmed response...free yourself from the ignorance Lon.

No, you just like to lead in the dance. The point was not that they don't get 'similar' rights, but that they don't (obviously) have the same ones. Why? There are a lot of reasons. If you disdain an organic family's advantages, at least don't kid yourself they don't exist. In tact, biological families fare far and away better than counterparts. No government program will fix that. You are so busy looking for marginalization where there is none intended. We all believe and even support inequities as we surely should. Old people 'should' get to retire. Young people "shouldn't" drink.

 

[musterion]

Don't take sodomites seriously, Lon.

 

[musterion]

Promoting the behavior of sodomy as normal and acceptabl. As if you didn't know you perverted fag.

Yup. The wannabe lady doth protest too much whenever sodomy is questioned.

 

[noguru]

There is MUCH intolerance and inequality coming from supposedly progressive and humane (liberal) ideology. It has been executed all afoul.

I agree. I was just defriended by a FB college friend because I did not immediately side with her knee jerk "pro-black" (if you can call it that) stance on this newest incident in LA where the officers shot the mentally ill homeless person. I was certainly willing to hear her side of it, but as soon as I pointed out some factors she did not consider she defriended me. I try to stay away from knee jerk reactions from either side of the political spectrum, and consider both sides of the argument. I guess some could say that makes me a "knee jerk" moderate.

 

[noguru]

Indeed, just the other day I was called a 'hatemonger' for supporting the bakery in the example I gave.

The thing is that at least one knows what those on the right stand for. On the whole, they are consistent and don't claim to be tolerant of everyone and everything. The left claim to be tolerant of everyone and everything but the reality is they are intolerant of those they deem to be intolerant. To me that is inconsistent and hypocritical.

It is absurd to expect anyone (including one's self) to be tolerant of everyone and everything. The mere fact that we place value on life means some sort of judgement regarding behavior must be made. I think the left is not really liberal anymore. It started out that way, but because the right is unified (at least it seems that way at times) in upholding the status quo/tradition, the left feels it must reject any current standard the right upholds. (It is important to note that our current left vs right standards of morality are a historical snapshot of morality directly preceding WWII. And of course the US conservative business people had a major influence because the US was the only remaining world super power with existing manufacturing capabilities to supply the global need.)

"Liberal" ought to be reserved for the education prior to any choice. But that education would be worthless if there was not some goal we were trying to achieve.

 

[noguru]

I can only surmise that the concept is beyond your abilities and that trying to explain it yet again would be a waste of time.

Yep, they definitely do not understand your very clear and simple point.