I believe in free speech, but I don't think that First Amendment protects you from a sort of social backlash. It protects you from having the government come in and cart you away. Anytime some one makes a public, controversial comment I think it is fair that they can expect people to react. There is no amendment that protects you from people thinking poorly of you.
So, I support the farm's right to post a political sign on their property. I also support people's right to choose not to do business with them for any reason. I don't see what is so "intolerant" about that.
I obviously disagree with the main consensus on this. I do not think following the legal channels to make the laws you want is intolerant. For example, I do not think voting for someone who is against same sex marriage is intolerant. If that is against mainstream America it will not matter who you voted for, they will not win. You still have the right to vote for whoever you want and to have whatever opinion you want. Now on the other hand, this is not the same as the KKK where they put people on crosses and burnt them alive. The comparison is unreal.
I do want to clear up that while I support the right to be against same sex marriage, my personal opinion is that there should be no government benefits to marriage for anyone, gay or straight. That you could have one adult dependant and it could be anyone you chose. A sister, a husband, a best friend. Whoever. That would take the whole problem away and be true separation of church and state.
How are the two mutual exclusive. Voting or majorities have nothing to do with the definition of intolerance.
Simply because more extreme examples of intolerance exist does not mean anything lesser is 'tolerant'Now on the other hand, this is not the same as the KKK where they put people on crosses and burnt them alive. The comparison is unreal.
What I am saying is you can use the legal means in place to change laws without being intolerant. For example, If I meet a homosexual in real life I would not tell them my opinions on the subject. I would treat them the same as any other person and they would have no reason to believe how I feel. (This is a debate board and I am more open with discussion) However, I can still vote along my beliefs with still being very tolerant to the people in my life. Treating them with respect and kindness.
Intolerance would be being mean, rude and obnoxious to said person. The attitude of "Eww, You are gay. You have cooties. Get away from me." That would be intolerant.
I can only guess that the two go together somehow....that they feel there is intolerance from the pro gay marriage community because they have somehow 'forced' them to take their sign down and have refused to do business with them based on their beliefs.
I have no seen stranger definitions of the word 'force' and of the word 'intolerant'...and even 'hate' than i have in the last two days.
If the majority of people were to vote back in segregation of blacks from whites today...does that all of a sudden mean that it is no longer an intolerant view? SImply because it was put in place by a legal system?
This argument makes no sense. Legal does not equal tolerance and the legal system can't somehow magically make something that is intolerant not intolerant.
Who cares what you say to their face, if you would choose an action that directly affects their ability to do what you do...youar actions are intolerant. Just because you would do something behind their back and be nice to their face doesn't make you a tolerant person. I am using the general you...not you specific. If you have views....keep them to yourself and never try to affect their lives, to their face OR behind their back, then you are tolerant.For example, If I mean a homosexual in real life I would not tell them my opinions on the subject. I would treat them the same as any other person and they would have no reason to believe how I feel.
If you are Christian, and I am friendly to your face and never share my personal view of your faith, but then attempt to legally ban the participation in organized Christian Churches, i am not tolerant of Christianity. I'm just intolerant and you don't know it.(This is a debate board and I am more open with discussion) However, I can still vote along my beliefs with still being very tolerant to the people in my life. Treating them with respect and kindness.
This is just flat out false...and is not the defintion of intolerance.Intolerance would be being mean, rude and obnoxious to said person. The attitude of "Eww, You are gay. You have cooties. Get away from me." That would be intolerant.
Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.
The second definition is not the type we are talking about. That would be like a 'high tolerance for pain.'
I think that you can be against something and not be intolerant. An example of this would be the people who believe that you should not live together before marriage. In their churches they may talk about not living together before marriage. At home, they may tell their children that they do not think they should live together before marriage. But they also don't typically try to make it illegal for consenting adults to live together before marriage. They live their beliefs by simply not engaging in the act that they believe is wrong. I believe that is a good example of being tolerant towards something that you disagree with.
The homosexual marriage thing is different, since instead of being content to not engage in homosexual marriage (as they are with not living together) Christians have taken it upon themselves to make it illegal. It is that piece of it that crosses the line into intolerance IMO.