danivon wrote:Is tolerance a good thing and intolerance a bad thing?

Bbauska, your hypothetical is weird, but I don't think it is actually very 'intolerant' to stop people from discriminating against homosexual couples or against heterosexual couples. It is, in reality, intolerance of intolerance itself.

Some things I would argue should not be tolerated. We no longer tolerate slavery in our nations. We should not tolerate violent crime. Now, someone could claim that their moral code does not see slavery or pederasty or fraud or any kind of thing that society has deemed immoral enough to be illegal. Even if they claim that their religion holds that one man can be the property of another, or that 8 year olds are sexually adult or that women should submit to male power, or whatever, does this mean we should tolerate it?

A classic example from US history, concerning marriage is the change made to Utah law to ban polygamy before it could join the Union. It was intolerant of the USA to stop Mormons from marrying several women. But was that a bad thing? Not the same question.

Thank you for the answer. The difference in what we are saying is "Should" vs "Have to". We certainly agree with each other in the cases you have provided. Almost all would agree. However, to force a florist to provide flowers for a wedding that they do not wish to service under threat of lawsuit is another.

Is it intolerant to hold your opinion that same sex marriages are wrong and choose (Dang! There is that word again!) not to service such a wedding?

Or is it intolerant to threaten someone who does not believe as you do with a lawsuit if they do not provide. We had this discussion before, but not in the realm of intolerance.

It is my opinion that the intolerance is coming from those who support same sex marriage, and want those who do not believe the same way to have to support the activities thereof.

It is ok that there is same sex marriage. I don't agree with the term marriage being applied, but whole-heartedly believe the same sex couples should have ALL the same rights as hetero couples.

I would not think it is ok for a same sex couple to bring a lawsuit against me for my choice to not call their relationship a marriage. To me, THAT is intolerance. If a florist does not want to provide flowers for a wedding, so be it. The lose the job and the money. There are other florists...

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Is tolerance a good thing and intolerance a bad thing?

Bbauska, your hypothetical is weird, but I don't think it is actually very 'intolerant' to stop people from discriminating against homosexual couples or against heterosexual couples. It is, in reality, intolerance of intolerance itself.

Some things I would argue should not be tolerated. We no longer tolerate slavery in our nations. We should not tolerate violent crime. Now, someone could claim that their moral code does not see slavery or pederasty or fraud or any kind of thing that society has deemed immoral enough to be illegal. Even if they claim that their religion holds that one man can be the property of another, or that 8 year olds are sexually adult or that women should submit to male power, or whatever, does this mean we should tolerate it?

A classic example from US history, concerning marriage is the change made to Utah law to ban polygamy before it could join the Union. It was intolerant of the USA to stop Mormons from marrying several women. But was that a bad thing? Not the same question.

Thank you for the answer. The difference in what we are saying is "Should" vs "Have to". We certainly agree with each other in the cases you have provided. Almost all would agree. However, to force a florist to provide flowers for a wedding that they do not wish to service under threat of lawsuit is another.

Is it intolerant to hold your opinion that same sex marriages are wrong and choose (Dang! There is that word again!) not to service such a wedding?

Or is it intolerant to threaten someone who does not believe as you do with a lawsuit if they do not provide. We had this discussion before, but not in the realm of intolerance.

It is my opinion that the intolerance is coming from those who support same sex marriage, and want those who do not believe the same way to have to support the activities thereof.

It is ok that there is same sex marriage. I don't agree with the term marriage being applied, but whole-heartedly believe the same sex couples should have ALL the same rights as hetero couples.

I would not think it is ok for a same sex couple to bring a lawsuit against me for my choice to not call their relationship a marriage. To me, THAT is intolerance. If a florist does not want to provide flowers for a wedding, so be it. The lose the job and the money. There are other florists...

QFT!

bbauska

Is it intolerant to hold your opinion that same sex marriages are wrong and choose (Dang! There is that word again!) not to service such a wedding

What if the refusal of service was becasue it was a wedding of blacks or of mixed race and the owner was of the opinion that these shouldn't be allowed?

Isn't it illegal to discriminate service based upon things like sex, race, age, sexual orientation etc?


bbauska

Or is it intolerant to threaten someone who does not believe as you do with a lawsuit if they do not provide

They are being intolerant of intolerance...
And they have the law on their side, since they are a protected class.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, I'll ignore the obvious, whiny complaint that it seems you're comparing traditional values to pederasty . . .

Well done. Because I was not making a comparison in the way you are thinking. Of course, pederasty (as we understand it) was once 'traditional' in societies, but that is beside the point. The point was really to as whether all 'intolerance' is bad.

but, should churches be permitted to "discriminate" against homosexual couples wanting to get married in them?

Yes. The law about to be passed in England and Wales (which will kill off Tom's talking point about us not having full gay marriage) allows just that. If a church wants to marry a gay couple it can (but will have to answer to it's denomation), if they don't, then they don't have to allow it. The only exception is that the C of E is expressly forbidden to marry gay couples without a further change in the law.

A classic example from US history, concerning marriage is the change made to Utah law to ban polygamy before it could join the Union. It was intolerant of the USA to stop Mormons from marrying several women. But was that a bad thing? Not the same question.

Actually, it is. That law was not about the subjection of women, but about traditional marriage. You may not see it as the same thing now, but at that time it was exactly the same question.

The two questions at the end, that I say are not the same thing are:

1) Was it intolerant to stop Mormons from having polygamous marriages? (Implicitly answered in the affirmitive in my words)

2) Was it a bad thing to stop Mormond from having polygamous marriages? (unanswered)

You seem to be second-guessing not only the answer to the second, but the reason behind it. That was not my point. My point was that intolerance is not always bad, and tolerance is not always good.

Tolerance of intolerance is not necessarily that great either.

bbauska wrote:Thank you for the answer. The difference in what we are saying is "Should" vs "Have to". We certainly agree with each other in the cases you have provided. Almost all would agree. However, to force a florist to provide flowers for a wedding that they do not wish to service under threat of lawsuit is another.

Is there evidence that this is happening? Or just a hypothetical you can clutch pearls at?

Is it intolerant to hold your opinion that same sex marriages are wrong and choose (Dang! There is that word again!) not to service such a wedding?

Yes, it is intolerant. You are explicitly showing that you do not agree with their choice to marry, and are making it harder for them to do it as they wish.

Or is it intolerant to threaten someone who does not believe as you do with a lawsuit if they do not provide. We had this discussion before, but not in the realm of intolerance.

The 'Or' suggests mutual exclusivity. It may well be intolerant to slap a lawsuit on someone who withholds goods or services because they don't like what certain people do/believe/are. Of course, there are protected characteristics who we as a society have decided should not be used as the basis for discrimination in that way. At the moment, in the USA, sexuality is not such a class (In the UK, it is).

It is my opinion that the intolerance is coming from those who support same sex marriage, and want those who do not believe the same way to have to support the activities thereof.

It's my opinion that something someone once said about motes and beams applies here. There appears to be a fair amount of intolerance to go around, trying to push it all on to the other side of the argument is.... a little intolerant itself.

It is ok that there is same sex marriage. I don't agree with the term marriage being applied, but whole-heartedly believe the same sex couples should have ALL the same rights as hetero couples.

Ah well, good. When you get over the hang-up of nomenclature, we'll be in agreement. I can tolerate you being uncomfortable about the name and expressing it. I just hope you don't use it as an excuse to be intolerant of those who are not and want to use it.

again pushing YOUR views on others. Because in your mind, same sex marriage is a right, then we must follow your thinking. What if the wedding was between an entire village of naked hippies? What if it was a ceremony between a man and his zebra? You want the same sex marriage to be law so we can "protect" these gay people but you have zero tolerance when it comes to any other downtrodden group you happen to disagree with, so again, Bbauska asking who is more intolerant should possibly be asking who is more hypocritical? if he has a set view and has no problem with his position AND has no problem with your position, then it seems YOU are the one who wants it only your way with no room for differing opinions.

GMTom wrote:again pushing YOUR views on others. Because in your mind, same sex marriage is a right, then we must follow your thinking.

Not at all. But if it does become a legal right, which it already is in several US states, and soon to be in England, then, well, don't worry about my 'thinking' and consider that the law has changed to allow it, and your opinion is not going to trump it.

If you can quote where I said you had to agree with me, go ahead. If not, wind your neck in.

What if the wedding was between an entire village of naked hippies?

Personally I don't have a problem with polygamy when it is fully consensual and things have been worked out properly in terms of the rights and responsibilities. It's not my preference for my own self, but I don't have a problem with it for others

What if it was a ceremony between a man and his zebra?

I love it when conservatives bring this kind of thing up. A Zebra is not sentient, it cannot agree to marry, or disagree, it can't understand marriage. So no, I think those should not be tolerated (bestiality is not something I agree with, you see). Similarly, children cannot give informed consent to a sexual relationship or to a marriage.

You want the same sex marriage to be law so we can "protect" these gay people but you have zero tolerance when it comes to any other downtrodden group you happen to disagree with,

Well, you appear to have decided my answers before I give them so you can say I don't support other 'downtrodden' groups. I can see that polygamists may have a good point. So you are wrong in your assumption.

so again, Bbauska asking who is more intolerant should possibly be asking who is more hypocritical? if he has a set view and has no problem with his position AND has no problem with your position, then it seems YOU are the one who wants it only your way with no room for differing opinions.

Again, Tom, how am I stopping bbauska or you from having your opinion?

If I was, how come you've been able to express it, several times, over this thread and others? Maybe I'm not actually doing what you accuse me of?

You have your opinion. I have the opinion that you are WRONG. This is not the same as saying you can't have your opinion. When you work out the difference, get back to me.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2013/02/bakery-denies-same-sex-couple-wedding-cake/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-usa-gaymarriage-washington-idUSBRE93I08820130419

Yes, it is happening. People are being forced (under fear of lawsuit) to participate in things that they do not agree with. Are there no other florists or cake makers?

This is why I wanted your opinion on intolerance. RickyP and Danivon seem to think it is fine to have a business forced to do something they do not want to.

The preacher that was talking in Wimbledon about sin and sexual immorality (did not mention homosexuality specifically, btw) was accused of being intolerant because he was giving his views, and not making anyone change. These cases are involving someone who is having to violate their views.

Is anyone else seeing the dichotomy? Why does the preacher have to be silent on a PUBLIC road (apparently in the UK that is the law), but a business cannot have it's view?

As I have said before, the same sex marriage crowd can have it's opinion, and should have ALL rights that a hetero couple should. Those rights should not be upon others. Danivon says some intolerance is good and some tolerance is bad. I agree with him. I just believe it is a personal choice as to which a person chooses is which.

first off, my reply was to Ricky above yours, you posted at the same time as I had. But it changes very little, the zebra thing is not suggesting it should be legal (although by now allowing such willy nilly changes in definition of marriage, all it would take is a simple change of the law) I was simply asking if Bbauska would have to serve this odd wedding by law? Yes it was meant to be incredible and stupid!

You are not stopping anyone from having an opinion, gee thanks. But you are forcing your views upon us in one situation while not allowing any differing views be possibly accepted elsewhere. You are being very hypocritical to say the least not to mention more than a bit smug.

bbauska

This is why I wanted your opinion on intolerance. RickyP and Danivon seem to think it is fine to have a business forced to do something they do not want to.

Businesses are licensed. They are allowed to conduct commerce as long as they follow the laws of the state.
One law might be that business must serve people regardless of their color. . Where once businesses were allowed to not serve blacks .... now if they wish to offer their goods or service to whites they must also offer to blacks..
This is an example of force on businesses Bbauska... This what you mean?
Once you've decided that gay marriage is legal, with holding service to gays becomes problematic.
If their are laws against discrimination because of sexual orientation these services would be in the same place that businesses that once eschewed service to blacks..
If Danivon is right, and the idea of protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation is not provided in the US (I think some states do make this a protected class) then business could legally turn aside gay marriages...
But at the point sexual orientation becomes a protected class ...discriminatory offerings would be illegal.
Besides, selling someone some flowers doesn't mean anything other than a transaction. What if the gay person buying the flowers said they were for a school graduation? Would that be okay? he'd sell them the flowers then?

Bbauska - maybe you did not watch the video that DF posted, but the preacher in Wimbledon who was arrested (and as far as I can tell, not charged) most definitely did mention homosexuality. A lot. Yes, he talked about sexual immorality in other ways, but he definitely did explicitly talk about homosexuality as part of that.

Tom. I am no more forcing my opinion you than you are on me. If you believe in free expression, that includes the right for other people (like me) to say stuff you don't like. I am not trying to censor you, or stop you saying what you think. Disagreement is not the same thing.

danivon wrote:Bbauska - maybe you did not watch the video that DF posted, but the preacher in Wimbledon who was arrested (and as far as I can tell, not charged) most definitely did mention homosexuality. A lot. Yes, he talked about sexual immorality in other ways, but he definitely did explicitly talk about homosexuality as part of that.

He cited 1 Thess 4 and it's about sexual immorality. He discussed many forms of that. Was it hate speech when he condemned fornication? Why or why not?

danivon wrote:Bbauska - maybe you did not watch the video that DF posted, but the preacher in Wimbledon who was arrested (and as far as I can tell, not charged) most definitely did mention homosexuality. A lot. Yes, he talked about sexual immorality in other ways, but he definitely did explicitly talk about homosexuality as part of that.

Tom. I am no more forcing my opinion you than you are on me. If you believe in free expression, that includes the right for other people (like me) to say stuff you don't like. I am not trying to censor you, or stop you saying what you think. Disagreement is not the same thing.

I meant to type specifically in the parenthesis. Correction made.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

This is why I wanted your opinion on intolerance. RickyP and Danivon seem to think it is fine to have a business forced to do something they do not want to.

Businesses are licensed. They are allowed to conduct commerce as long as they follow the laws of the state.
One law might be that business must serve people regardless of their color. . Where once businesses were allowed to not serve blacks .... now if they wish to offer their goods or service to whites they must also offer to blacks..
This is an example of force on businesses Bbauska... This what you mean?
Once you've decided that gay marriage is legal, with holding service to gays becomes problematic.
If their are laws against discrimination because of sexual orientation these services would be in the same place that businesses that once eschewed service to blacks..
If Danivon is right, and the idea of protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation is not provided in the US (I think some states do make this a protected class) then business could legally turn aside gay marriages...
But at the point sexual orientation becomes a protected class ...discriminatory offerings would be illegal.
Besides, selling someone some flowers doesn't mean anything other than a transaction. What if the gay person buying the flowers said they were for a school graduation? Would that be okay? he'd sell them the flowers then?

Does it matter? I think it does. If you sell flowers to a gay but not provide them for a wedding, you are not discriminating against the person, just the venue. Do you see the difference there?

How about California' s Unruh Civil Rights Act:

51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and
equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic
information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to
the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,
privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind
whatsoever.

There are penalties of $4,000 per civil rights violation. Plus you can recover attorney's fees.

So in California a florist who decides that he does not want to sell flowers for a gay marriage will find that decision to be awfully expensive unless he can make some argumentt that it impinges on his freedom of religion. I suspect a court would not find that argument to be persuasive since he is free to practice his religion, he is just not free to discriminate based on his religion if he wants to do business.

bbauska

Does it matter? I think it does. If you sell flowers to a gay but not provide them for a wedding, you are not discriminating against the person, just the venue. Do you see the difference there

?

yeah. Although its not the venue, actually, its the purpose. The gay couple could use the same venue for a marriage or a bar mitzvah....
But it won't work in california for instance. (Unruh Civil Rights)
And its pretty dumb. The flowers don't know if its a bar mitvah or a wedding ... The money passing from customer to shop keep is also devoid of sexual orientation. Its a rather pointless exercise in suppossedly principled behaviour that does nothing more than put the public spot light on the store owner as as someone who won't tolerate someone else's personal and legal choices. Maybe it makes the owner happy to be able to demonstrate what he thinks is his moral superiority... And in return it seems to make the offended gay couple happy to be able to strike out at people who are intolerant in this way ...
The courts have given minorities who are teated as equals with the tools to strike back at expressions of intolerance and unequal treatment. They no longer have to tolerate the intolerance.
To a certain extent I understand that they get aggressive about using these tools after decades of having to accomodate the intolerance...