No, that's freedom of expression. Are you against homosexuals' right to freedom of expression as well?
I'd say it harms them like it would harm you ....same as if your civil rights were being violated.
The Intolerance of 'Tolerance', the Inequality of 'Equality' and Left Wing Hypocrisy
- Thread starter lovemeorhateme
- Start date
No, that's freedom of expression. Are you against homosexuals' right to freedom of expression as well?
I'd say it harms them like it would harm you ....same as if your civil rights were being violated.
Dialogos
Well-known member
Exactly, where the heck does he think he lives? In a country where there is freedom of expression?
Jedidiah
New member
So...no harm at all then: It doesn't bother me when my civil right to LGBTQ marriage is violated.
My first thought is that no hardware store in the world sells a broad enough brush for you.
Isn't TOL just miserable when it's token ray of atheist sunshine is away?
Jose Fly
New member
Yes. What company wants its employees expressing hate or bigotry with their name attached?
Lon
Well-known member
...ordered defective Granite? :think:
Cleekster
Active member
They aren't the only ones who do this
you mean like social conservatives and adherents of Christianity and Islam?
homosexuals are discriminated against so it IS equality and you trying to prevent them from having what you enjoy and getting upset about it is privilege.
and they should, discrimination is wrong....bigotry is wrong. you don't get to dictate peoples relationships just because of what an iron age book says.
...change homosexual to Christian and it works just as well....just saying
ok trade places the words homosexual and Christians...
There is a BIG difference between support for a cause and defining the rights of an entire segment of the population.
dude ...homosexuals are only asking for rights that you already enjoy
noguru
Well-known member
He did that several years back. Perhaps he just has this need to feel persecuted by others.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
It seems you're missing the point. I don't claim people should be tolerant of everyone or every belief, indeed many Christians aren't and don't claim to be. Yes many of those on the left do claim to be tolerant while being intolerant of anyone who dissents from their views.
Homosexuals have never had it better, but many of them do love to play the victim card.
The word 'bigot' seems to have lost its meaning these days, it's used an awful lot against Christians yet some of the most intolerant bigots are homosexual activists, who seem to have a desire that everyone agree with them or be bullied into submission by being treated as a social outcast.
I once lived as a homosexual, now I am a Christian. I traded those labels in my own life. I've been on both sides of this one.
Well it seems to be that if one doesn't support the 'gay rights' cause then ones rights will be taken away as is happening in cases like the bakery refusing to bake a cake with a political slogan on it.
They already have all of the same rights as anyone else, what they want is more rights. Extra rights.
They also never had it nearly as good as heterosexuals. So many of them play the equality before the law card. Would you grant there's a difference between those two?
I tend to favor Merriam Webster, which has bigot as: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc...especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group).
The trouble spots are "unfairly" and "accept". What constitutes that has a way of shifting from ideology to ideology. At law it's much simpler, provided you found the law in fact and reason.
That gives you a rare perspective, though there's also the ex smoker, ex anything tendency to go more strongly against the former position than someone who hasn't been where you were.
You didn't answer me the first time around, but here it is in a nutshell: you aren't losing a right when someone tells you that you can't discriminate against someone without justification at law. You never should have had the right to do that.
If the baker in question had been asked to write "Archer Bakery Supports Gay Rights" it would be one thing. To simply follow the instructions of a customer isn't an endorsement of the customer's position. You don't have to believe in marriage to make a wedding cake or the Torah to make a dreidel, by way of.
Nothing in that statement is true here. Can they marry where you live and in every legal respect find themselves in the same position as their heterosexual counterparts? I don't know where the law stands across the pond. And what extra rights?
Quincy
New member
I don't think all that well of the way people use term tolerance. It always seems to have a negative connotation in the sense that one person/group has a right to allow another to be who they are or do what they want. I don't really think that's much better than being intolerant, especially with how some use it to try and make themselves seem like a better political choice.
When someone tells me they champion tolerance towards homosexuals or ethnic minorities, for example, I get that they're trying to imply something positive but still comes off as a pompous statement.
It takes me back to being in high school, in the late 90s. My school got it's first student of African descent then. The majority of students avoided him or even went so far as to treat him negatively while most of the rest didn't seem to like him or be all that interested in getting to know him, but they were highly against the haters who they saw as treating someone different wrongly. I remember wondering why none of them were treating like they would any one else they knew. He was another human being, period.
I think as long as people continue to look at others as groups that we either have to tolerate or not, we will always have problems.
When someone tells me they champion tolerance towards homosexuals or ethnic minorities, for example, I get that they're trying to imply something positive but still comes off as a pompous statement.
It takes me back to being in high school, in the late 90s. My school got it's first student of African descent then. The majority of students avoided him or even went so far as to treat him negatively while most of the rest didn't seem to like him or be all that interested in getting to know him, but they were highly against the haters who they saw as treating someone different wrongly. I remember wondering why none of them were treating like they would any one else they knew. He was another human being, period.
I think as long as people continue to look at others as groups that we either have to tolerate or not, we will always have problems.
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
What many homosexual activists call 'equality' is far from that. For as in the example cited in the opening post many would damn that bakery for refusing to make that cake while if the boot was on the other foot they would demand the right to refuse service. Is there any difference between a Christian bakery refusing to write a pro-gay 'marriage' slogan and a homosexual bakery refusing to write an anti-gay 'marriage' slogan? I guarantee you that the homosexual activist when looking at the two situations would advocate unequal treatment before the law, yet dress it up and call it 'equality'.
Indeed, bigots can be of any flavour, belief or ideology. Though if one were to read the rhetoric of homosexual activists then it would be easy to think that bigotry could only ever come from religious people which is simply not the case.
Indeed, one could use that analogy. I love others, I love those caught up in that lifestyle and desire to see them come to know Christ. I'm not homophobic, I don't hate.. and yet I've been called a hate-filled, homophobic bigot many times. If there is one thing that really brings on the intolerance and wrath of the homosexual community, it is going from living as an openly homosexual man to living the life I am now.
I cannot agree with that. I believe that any owner of a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, at any time.
This wasn't a wedding cake, just to point out. This was a cake for a homosexual event which was a call to people to support homosexual 'marriage'.
As it happens, homosexual 'marriage' is now fully legal in the UK. But yes, before that they had the same rights to enter into a marriage as anyone else. Just not a marriage with someone of the same gender.
As for extra rights, see my above comment about inequality before the law.
Having it better isn't the bar. If you were a black man in Selma in the 50s you never had it so good compared to your great grandfather, but better wasn't the bar. If you were a woman the year before Suffrage won the day you never had it so good compared to a women a few generations before that, and so on.
Some likely would, but they'd be irrational and the law shouldn't accommodate them.
No, they're both wrong it they customarily allow their patrons to have slogans put on their cakes.
And the opposing activist would declare his conscience being violated and his support being forced and they'd both be wrong to enforce that notion at law. So let's argue against irrational enforcement of subjective value and support a rational rule of law.
Same sort of thing from many zealots on the other side of it.
Well, those at the radical end are going to call you that. Likely others who aren't might be put off by the "never had it so good" approach and I think you could understand that.
Then you'd have perpetuated a segregated South (and parts elsewhere) for generations. That sort of latitude promotes an unintended tyranny of the majority, which is one reason we're not a democracy. Another problem is your private business will utilize and benefit by public works. That is, you are taking benefit from programs and services and support from tax dollars, many of which will be supplied by people who don't agree with you.
Same answer. If you don't have a problem writing a Catholic slogan or a Rotarian slogan on your work then you're in the business of putting things on your cake with or without your tacit approval of the ideas or parties.
Then they have the same protections at law.
lain: Like suggesting midgets have the same right to make the Air Force height requirement. Why even bother saying that? But given only the irrational could argue for that inequity and it isn't the actual point of any serious consideration of the actual laws and how they're examined why spend any real time on it? It's a bit like the conspiracy theorists for the most part. We know they're there, understand a lot of what they're saying and it moves and alters nothing at all. So outside of the novelty it gives the impression or can of someone attempting to taint a legitimate point by associating it with something no reasonable person would consider.
oh for goodness sake - would you stop already with comparing the unjust perversion of the white south in denying justice to a group of people who did not choose the color of their skin to the disgusting perverts who choose to act like disgusting perverts?
or, if not, would you stop pretending that you're anything other than a leftist?
