How is that different from demanding that religious people serve your big fat gay wedding?
Chaim Amalek writes: “I want some gay goy to demand a Hasid in Borough Park bake him a wedding cake. Just to watch our politicians and journalists hide.”
Ace of Spades writes: The zealots are not claiming that we must be tolerant towards all — that is a principle most could agree with.
No, they are instead claiming we must embrace the things they love, and hate — and persecute — the things they hate.
This is not “tolerance.” This is, at best, simply the replacement of one set of bigotries and hatreds with the
left’s favored set of bigotries and hatreds.
This WSJ is worth a read, though it gets, I think, pretty deceptive in its middle part. The WSJ says that opponents of Indiana’s RFRA law “claim” that the law would “empower” florists and wedding photographers to “discriminate” against gay weddings.
That’s not the claim, Old Bean. That’s the entire point.
And it signals how lost this issue is when not even the defenders of the RFRA can even admit the law’s purpose. They seem compelled to pretend this bit about refusing service to gay weddings is just some hypothetical crazy talk.
It’s not. It’s the whole point. And we should not be afraid to say so.
I don’t disagree with those who refuse to serve gay weddings, and I don’t necessarily agree with them, either. I don’t have to. That is the point of tolerance — not that I either disagree or agree with someone’s decision or someone’s self-expression, but that I support his rights to decide for himself, and express himself, as he sees fit.
My agreement with his decisions or speech — my disgust with it — my sympathies for it — my hatred of it — irrelevant, because I am not weighing in on the speech or decision itself — merely whether I believe an American has a right to so speak or so decide.
And on that matter, I most emphatically do support their right to decide or speak as they would.
