Another One Bites The Dust!

[Cow Poke]

What, exactly, have you seen that suggests proponents will go that far overboard?

This whole attitude that people aren't allowed to express opinions that don't match those of the thought police.

The marriage equality movement is certainly picking up steam and should continue to gain support, but I've never seen anyone argue that pastors should be forced to perform weddings.

That you have never seen it does not mean it does not exist. It has already been argued quite forcefully here on Tweb that anybody who provides a service to anybody should have to provide that same service to everybody.

[KingsGambit]

What, exactly, have you seen that suggests proponents will go that far overboard? The marriage equality movement is certainly picking up steam and should continue to gain support, but I've never seen anyone argue that pastors should be forced to perform weddings.

It doesn't seem like a major step up from forcing people to do flower businesses, etc.

[Cow Poke]

It doesn't seem like a major step up from forcing people to do flower businesses, etc.

Or forcing a Church to allow a gay wedding since they allow "other" weddings.

[Christianbookworm]

It doesn't seem like a major step up from forcing people to do flower businesses, etc.

Besides, why would they want to do business with someone that disagrees with their lifestyle choices? Especially if the business owner feels like it would seem to be supportive of their choice.

[Cow Poke]

Besides, why would they want to do business with someone that disagrees with their lifestyle choices?

Because they can use the "hammer of the law" to force people to acknowledge them.

Especially if the business owner feels like it would seem to be supportive of their choice.

It's an "in your face" kind of "you have to acknowledge our lifestyle" thing, is all I can figure.

[Thoughtful Monk]

This whole attitude that people aren't allowed to express opinions that don't match those of the thought police.

That you have never seen it does not mean it does not exist. It has already been argued quite forcefully here on Tweb that anybody who provides a service to anybody should have to provide that same service to everybody.

I think its only a matter of time and probably a lot soon than I was previously expecting. As the former CEO of Mozilla can tell you, it impossible to defend against social shaming. They may not even have to go to the law to get what they want - churches that agree with them or close their doors.

[Joel]

I don't see any problem with intolerance towards wrong and harmful views.

Wow, you don't support freedom of thought, freedom of speech, etc, which pertain to tolerating views you disagree with (e.g., factually or morally). Just wow.

[Cow Poke]

Wow, you don't support freedom of thought, freedom of speech, etc, which pertain to tolerating views you disagree with (e.g., factually or morally). Just wow.

Yeah, ya just gotta proclaim those views "wrong and harmful", and you can discriminate all you want!

[Christianbookworm]

Who's "legislating morality" now? If someone behaves too jerkish in support of their beliefs, they just won't get the money. Do they(liberals) want meaningless lip service?

[Joel]

I think its only a matter of time and probably a lot soon than I was previously expecting. As the former CEO of Mozilla can tell you, it impossible to defend against social shaming. They may not even have to go to the law to get what they want - churches that agree with them or close their doors.

A church that dissolves under social shaming is pretty frail. The early Church withstood social shaming plus being burned alive, fed to lions, sawn in half, crucified, etc.

[Thoughtful Monk]

A church that dissolves under social shaming is pretty frail. The early Church withstood social shaming plus being burned alive, fed to lions, sawn in half, crucified, etc.

I think there are a lot of frail churches out there.

[Cerealman]

I don't see any problem with intolerance towards wrong and harmful views. If people see these firings as an injustice, then maybe employee protection can become bipartisan.

The KKK thought/still thinks as blacks as wrong and harmful and many other groups that fine a variety of topics wrong and harmful.
What is your response to that?

[lilpixieofterror]

EGGzackly. It appears that gross inconsistency is a requirement to be a liberal of PM's ilk.

So I've noticed. My house during the holidays has had many different kinds of people over. Unlike some, I actually practice the concept of 'tolerance'.

[Cow Poke]

So I've noticed. My house during the holidays has had many different kinds of people over. Unlike some, I actually practice the concept of 'tolerance'.

Yeah, I Church with them, and I've hired them. And I don't tell them "shut up, you're fired" if they don't agree with me.

[lilpixieofterror]

My tolerance only extends as far as to those who don't actively harm others with their wrong opinions.

So you make up an 'actively harms others' assertion and then show your intolerant towards anybody that fits your 'actively harms others' assertion? How do you know that Cow Poke and others who don't agree with you are 'actively harming others'. My house, during the holidays, has been a place full of people that have no other place to go and does often include at least one person I happen to know calls themselves gay. I've even had people I know are gay that have stayed over at my house for nearly a week. Unlike you PM, it appears my tolerance actually extends to those I do not agree with.