My sure-to-be-unpopular opinion/rant...

[StaceyinLA]

I consider the religious based opposition to official gay marriage to be on the continuum of hate. One reason is that the idea that who a (adult) person loves and seeks (adult) romantic intimacy with to be "sin" is a hateful viewpoint.

 

There are several other reasons I consider being anti-gay marriage hateful - dead teens is another.

 

You are entitled to your opinion and to express it. No one is crucifying you (and what a patronizing, watered down word to use. Reminds me of using "Nazi" frivolously).

 

Well it doesn't surprise me that people think religious opposition to anything is on the hate continuum, but there ARE people with religious convictions and they are entitled to their right to have them. 

 

One of the biggest reasons (actually probably the ONLY reason) I wind up voting against gay marriage is because, in general, those who support gay marriage are pro-choice. Murdered babies take priority for me. I don't think there is really anything more hateful in this world.

[unsinkable]

Children need to be supervised, coached, and guided. Always, because they will deteriorate to the lowest common denominator of behavior.

 

.

Really? I haven't seen that with children. Sometimes it happens, but not always.

 

Seems pretty Calvinistic and Total Depravity-ish. :lol:

 

Not to mention Lord of the Flies-esque.

[justasque]

I think this is the sort of thing that the OP is referring too.

 

Nothing like forcing groupthink on the population. If you don't tow our line we will punish you.

 

As vile as his statements were he should be able to voice them without sanctions of any kind.

 

Free speech and all that.

 

Now if the fans and the players didn't like what he had to say, they are free to leave and spend their money elsewhere.

 

I think collectively ignoring is far more productive then collectively punishing and forcing people to express and hold "appropriate" opinions. I think people by their nature don't like being forced to do anything, even if it is for the "greater good". I think it just gets people hackles up and doesn't really change them. They may be going through the motions of PC behaviour but still hold racist or any other "ist" type of views.

If his business was his alone, then he would be free to behave as he wished, and suffer the consequences. But his business was part of a larger organization, in which many others, who did not share his views, would also find their business/job/livelihood to be negatively affected, perhaps for many years to come. (Similarly, the OP mentioned that she knows some folks who still won't eat at Chick-Fil-A, even though the company may have changed the actions that set off the boycott in the first place.) The larger organization decided to stem the bleeding, as is their right.

 

Make no mistake about it - this was a business decision.

[AlmiraGulch]

I think this is the sort of thing that the OP is referring too.

 

Nothing like forcing groupthink on the population. If you don't tow our line we will punish you.

 

As vile as his statements were he should be able to voice them without sanctions of any kind.

 

Free speech and all that.

 

Now if the fans and the players didn't like what he had to say, they are free to leave and spend their money elsewhere.

 

I think collectively ignoring is far more productive then collectively punishing and forcing people to express and hold "appropriate" opinions. I think people by their nature don't like being forced to do anything, even if it is for the "greater good". I think it just gets people hackles up and doesn't really change them. They may be going through the motions of PC behaviour but still hold racist or any other "ist" type of views.

 

First of all, this is not a Freedom of Speech issue.  Freedom of Speech protects against governmental retribution or imprisonment.  Clearly neither of those things were in play here.

 

In this case, the organization that this man was associated with saw clearly that his actions were going to have a negative impact on the employees and the bottom line of the business.  Sponsors were already dropping like flies, employees (players and coaches) were protesting, and attendance would likely have dropped dramatically.  This is a business, and the Commissioner had a responsibility to mitigate its risk, and so it did so swiftly and decisively. It was the most responsible thing he could have done.  

 

Additionally, his behavior was likely a violation of the NBA's Code of Conduct or Respect in the Workplace policy (obviously I haven't seen it, but it's common...I have, in fact, seen the one for the NFL as part of my work).  Failure to respond could very well have resulted in lawsuits claiming hostile work environment, putting the organization even further at risk.

 

The guy wants to be a bigot?  He's free to be.  He may not speak the words he spoke and expect no repercussions. It doesn't matter that they were spoken in his own home.  He is in a position of leadership, power, and authority, living in an electronic, plugged in world.  He should be smart enough to keep those types of opinions to himself.

[nmoira]

Well it doesn't surprise me that people think religious opposition to anything is on the hate continuum, but there ARE people with religious convictions and they are entitled to their right to have them.

 

One of the biggest reasons (actually probably the ONLY reason) I wind up voting against gay marriage is because, in general, those who support gay marriage are pro-choice. Murdered babies take priority for me. I don't think there is really anything more hateful in this world.

This is at least the second time you've brought up abortion in this thread you've started. Are you bored this afternoon, hoping to get a bit of a rise or of people? Abortion, racism, gay marriage, what else?

[mirth]

Not sure how the OP has suggested that anyone should swallow an earful without talking back.  I did think, however, she was saying that you should not cry as though some ignorant wild animal has just viciously attacked your ear and should be dispatched immediately as a result.  

 

I think everyone should speak up as much as they like.  When you instruct someone to clam up about their opinions forevermore, you admit that neither you nor the entire force of humanity has sufficient skills of persuasion or rhetoric to possibly change this person's mind and see things your way.  You have given up and you further want to obscure what you feel as a threat.  (failed to attempt to reform someone who identified themselves as candidates for reform) Example: as a minority, I would prefer being around someone who simply says, "I am a racist.  I think you are inferior.  That's the way I was brought up" than someone who is actually racist but never says anything about it.

 

About the whining aspect, I'm not sure this is what the OP getting at.  Hers was not chiefly a complaint about whiners.  Had more to do with resilience and survival than about whining and "being right".  If you act like you've just been attacked by a wild animal when it was really a just a soft human who uttered something you didn't like, how are you going to survive or even identify a real crisis when you insist that everyone keep acting in a certain acceptable, comfortable, tolerance-rich manner no matter what they really think?

 

[Joanne]

Really? I haven't seen that with children. Sometimes it happens, but not always.

 

Seems pretty Calvinistic and Total Depravity-ish. :lol:

 

Not to mention Lord of the Flies-esque.

 

 

Children, by definition are immature and can tend towards behavior that requires support, information, coaching, and guiding.

 

[StaceyinLA]

This is at least the second time you've brought up abortion in this thread you've started. Are you bored this afternoon, hoping to get a bit of a rise or of people? Abortion, racism, gay marriage, what else?

 

Number one, I didn't bring up racism as in saying it was remotely okay or tolerable. You're assuming that just because of my stating the coach's words within his home should've remained private, even if I think they were awful things to say.

 

I'm using the abortion as an example because it's obvious that people should (as mentioned in my OP) always accept others' beliefs and practices without question, but never be able to stand up for their own.

 

Why is it okay for ME (meaning me or anyone else) to be offended, but never okay for ME (or anyone else) to have an opinion or belief that offends?

[justasque]

... but I don't believe we should expect (as in the little boy with the "my little pony" backpack) for kids to never pick on or make fun of other kids. There are times when stepping in might be warranted, and times when we should be able to tell our kids to consider the source and move on. There will NEVER be a time when the mouths of 100% of children will be able to be controlled.

I think situations like this can and should be handled from both sides.

The boy with the backpack should be comforted, his feelings should be addressed, there should be some age-appropriate discussion as to why the other kid may have said what he said, and if needed perhaps some alternate ways of handling the situation could be suggested (tell an adult, brush it off, consider the source, etc. etc.). If he were my kid, I'd also explore whether he wanted to avoid the issue in future by not using the backpack, or if he would rather use the backpack despite the comments, and the various feelings/reactions that may result from these choices. Obviously, depending on the kid's reaction to the comments, it may be a minor issue that doesn't need all of this, or it may be a good opportunity to discuss some of these ideas with an eye towards future potential situations or empathy for others in similar shoes.

 

But it would also be appropriate, IMHO, for the adults involved to have a discussion with the other kid. It's an opportunity to discuss teasing - how to tell when it's all in fun vs. when it has crossed the line to meanness, why the kid felt this was worthy of teasing (what's wrong with My Little Pony, what made the boy feel it was something he needed to comment on, etc.), generally being kind to others even when they are different than ourselves, and so on. All this not with the idea that the child is "bad", but rather using it as an opportunity to teach empathy and grace, skills that will help the child in all kinds of situations later in life. Again, if it's a minor incident this may be overkill, so some judgement is in order as to how much the issue needs to be addressed.

 

It's not an either/or thing - either you side with the backpack kid or you side with the teasing kid. And it's certainly not an issue of controlling the mouths of children. Rather, it's an opportunity for teaching and growth for both children, and thoughtful adults should be able to handle it as part of the normal course of guiding young children and teaching them the skills they will need to do well in the adult world.

[kewb]

I want to be sure I am understanding you correctly.  

 

You don't hate gays but you do not believe they have the right to get married.  You love the gay people in your family but you do not want them to have the same protections and benefits under the law that you enjoy as a hetero married woman.  You vote against gay marriage because of your assumption that people who support gay marriage are pro-choice.  You willfully deny people the right to be married because you disagree with their assumed position on abortion and that is not a hateful thing to do.

 

If a business owner with an open to the public business discriminates against a gay couple because he feels it is against his religion it is okay for people to boycott his establishment but not okay for the victim of the discrimination to seek justice under the law.

 

I find this quite fascinating.

 

 

 

[Word Nerd]

Okay, I see what you mean. Yeah, the same thing happened to Jessica Alquist, the teen who asked her public school to stop promoting Christian references. Her state rep even called her an "evil little thing" on public radio. That's pretty crazy when a government official says that about a young person asking for a government institution to uphold the government's policy on separation of church and state. So yeah, crazy and creepy things happen to people who upset the applecart. Is this what Stacy is referring to in her thread, though? Is she suggesting people who don't agree with her might target her aggressively and even violently like Sacco and Alquist experienced? And if these examples are understood as being in the minority of likely responses to unpopular opinion, is the implication then that people should just keep quiet when they see offensive sentiments? 

 

My point was that there are right and wrong ways to address or speak out about opinions we disagree with (as the example you shared above also illustrates). My take on Stacey's statement about "ruin(ing) people's lives" was that she was essentially making that same point.

[AlmiraGulch]

 

One of the biggest reasons (actually probably the ONLY reason) I wind up voting against gay marriage is because, in general, those who support gay marriage are pro-choice. Murdered babies take priority for me. I don't think there is really anything more hateful in this world.

 

I actually know a lot of people who support gay marriage but are fervently pro-life.  Plus, the two issues are never, as far as I know, part of a single issue being voted on, so I don't see the correlation.

 

Still, since you believe as strongly as you do that abortion is hateful and wrong and murderous, it makes all the sense in the world to me that you would always vote pro-life, and always stand strong and loud for that belief.  This may even be something, as much as you seem moved by it, to march in a parade about. 

 

I don't see that as being "PC".  I see it as you standing up for what you deeply believe to be a moral absolute.  Guess what?  Many of us are just as moved and staunch in our beliefs, too, even if they differ from yours.  But...what?  You're right, and we're just trying to be politically correct (a term I hate, by the way)?  I don't get it. 

[zoobie]

Well it doesn't surprise me that people think religious opposition to anything is on the hate continuum, but there ARE people with religious convictions and they are entitled to their right to have them.

 

One of the biggest reasons (actually probably the ONLY reason) I wind up voting against gay marriage is because, in general, those who support gay marriage are pro-choice. Murdered babies take priority for me. I don't think there is really anything more hateful in this world.

You lost me. Who in a gay marriage would be getting an abortion? (Outside of rape)

[Joanne]

Well it doesn't surprise me that people think religious opposition to anything is on the hate continuum, but there ARE people with religious convictions and they are entitled to their right to have them. 

 

 

 

Where are they (in the US) not able to have this perspective?

[StaceyinLA]

Not sure how the OP has suggested that anyone should swallow an earful without talking back.  I did think, however, she was saying that you should not cry as though some ignorant wild animal has just viciously attacked your ear and should be dispatched immediately as a result.  

 

I think everyone should speak up as much as they like.  When you instruct someone to clam up about their opinions forevermore, you admit that neither you nor the entire force of humanity has sufficient skills of persuasion or rhetoric to possibly change this person's mind and see things your way.  You have given up and you further want to obscure what you feel as a threat.  (failed to attempt to reform someone who identified themselves as candidates for reform) Example: as a minority, I would prefer being around someone who simply says, "I am a racist.  I think you are inferior.  That's the way I was brought up" than someone who is actually racist but never says anything about it.

 

About the whining aspect, I'm not sure this is what the OP getting at.  Hers was not chiefly a complaint about whiners.  Had more to do with resilience and survival than about whining and "being right".  If you act like you've just been attacked by a wild animal when it was really a just a soft human who uttered something you didn't like, how are you going to survive or even identify a real crisis when you insist that everyone keep acting in a certain acceptable, comfortable, tolerance-rich manner no matter what they really think?

 

Thank you for your post, but mainly the bolded. 

[Joanne]

 

Why is it okay for ME (meaning me or anyone else) to be offended, but never okay for ME (or anyone else) to have an opinion or belief that offends?

 

Define "never okay."

 

What does that MEAN. Have you been arrested for your feelings? Physically threatened or harmed? Duct tape? Waterboarded?

 

I am being snarky, but I am not understanding you and the assertion that it is not okay for you to have a belief that offends.

 

This very belief/thread offends me. But I believe in your right to have started and participated in it.

[nmoira]

Number one, I didn't bring up racism as in saying it was remotely okay or tolerable. I'm using the abortion as an example because it's obvious that people should (as mentioned in my OP) always accept others' beliefs and practices without question, but never be able to stand up for their own.

 

Why is it okay for ME (meaning me or anyone else) to be offended, but never okay for ME (or anyone else) to have an opinion or belief that offends?

I'm not going to touch the second paragraph... it's low hanging fruit.

 

I was musing in my last post why you seen to be courting increasingly controversial topics as the thread progresses. FWIW I'm well aware of your view on abortion already, and while I disagree, I am not offended.

 

I'm confused though why you seem to be equating others' strongly held opinions brought to to counter your own as depression or infringing on your right to speak here.

 

ETA: I accidentally snipped out a paragraph of Stacey's post. On phone. Hard to fix.

[Desert Strawberry]

Maybe this thread is a temper tantrum about you not getting to be as mean as you want.

I am really not sure where this thread was supposed to go, but I don't think this is true. Stacey has never given me the impression that she harbors thinly concealed hatred in her heart.

[albeto.]

 it's obvious that people should (as mentioned in my OP) always accept others' beliefs and practices without question, but never be able to stand up for their own.

 

 

It's not obvious to me. Is this a trend you see in the United States? How are people being denied the opportunity to stand up for their opinions?

[justasque]

Well it doesn't surprise me that people think religious opposition to anything is on the hate continuum, but there ARE people with religious convictions and they are entitled to their right to have them. 

 

One of the biggest reasons (actually probably the ONLY reason) I wind up voting against gay marriage is because, in general, those who support gay marriage are pro-choice. Murdered babies take priority for me. I don't think there is really anything more hateful in this world.

 

I assume you mean here that the issues usually go together in terms of what different candidates stand for, thus someone who votes pro-life is also usually voting anti-gay-marriage, whether they feel this way or not, yes?

[AlmiraGulch]

 

I assume you mean here that the issues usually go together in terms of what different candidates stand for, thus someone who votes pro-life is also usually voting anti-gay-marriage, whether they feel this way or not, yes?

 

If this is what she meant, then now I understand.  I didn't consider the voting for a particular candidate, but rather for a specific issue.  

[StaceyinLA]

I want to be sure I am understanding you correctly.  

 

You don't hate gays but you do not believe they have the right to get married.  You love the gay people in your family but you do not want them to have the same protections and benefits under the law that you enjoy as a hetero married woman.  You vote against gay marriage because of your assumption that people who support gay marriage are pro-choice.  You willfully deny people the right to be married because you disagree with their assumed position on abortion and that is not a hateful thing to do.

 

If a business owner with an open to the public business discriminates against a gay couple because he feels it is against his religion it is okay for people to boycott his establishment but not okay for the victim of the discrimination to seek justice under the law.

 

I find this quite fascinating.

 

 

 

 

Well, you haven't misconstrued everything I said.

 

It is true that I'm not necessarily in support of gay marriage, though I said I wouldn't specifically vote against it or protest it. I do love those in my family that are gay, and believe they deserve happiness. 

 

As far as voting, I'm saying that politicians who are in favor of gay marriage (because let's assume I'm not going to be voting for anyone other than a politician to hold a political office), are generally pro-choice. Certainly this is because if they are in favor of gay marriage, they most likely have liberal leanings and in general that means they are pro-choice.

 

I would choose to vote pro-life over pro-gay-marriage, which in turn means I'd be voting against gay marriage.

 

Now, if there were a candidate that was pro-life and also pro-gay-marriage (and obviously had other views I agreed with), I wouldn't hesitate to support that candidate because I wouldn't specifically vote against gay marriage just for the sake of being anti-gay-marriage.

 

I hope you can still find my position fascinating.

 

As far as the business owner, I think it's a tough call. I think a private small business owner should have certain rights to stand up for what they believe morally and not be prosecuted. I stated above that I did not agree with that particular person's (the baker's) decision because I think to be truly Christ-like, she should've not denied the couple their cake. I don't think she was necessarily a good example of God's love, thereby fueling the proverbial fire.

[justasque]

Why is it okay for ME (meaning me or anyone else) to be offended, but never okay for ME (or anyone else) to have an opinion or belief that offends?

Of course it's ok for you to have whatever opinion or belief you wish. I don't think anyone here is saying you can't. I find it valuable to hear many perspectives on controversial issues; often I learn a lot from them. I welcome your opinions, even when I disagree with them.

 

I do believe that it's best when disagreeing with someone on controversial issues to avoid anything that smacks of personal attack. I think when words like "hate" are used, even when warranted, it can make it harder for people to communicate, and thus harder to understand each other's perspectives.

 

At the same time, some of these issues are controversial precisely because they can be highly personal, and that tends to result in high emotions and the resulting not-always-kind speech.

 

I'm glad that you, OP, are interested in discussing these issues. I think free speech is a very good thing for our country.

[zoobie]

If this is what she meant, then now I understand. I didn't consider the voting for a particular candidate, but rather for a specific issue.

That doesn't hold true for Prop 8 type circumstances. Also, not all Republicans are anti-choice. It's a relatively recent "I am more far right than you" fad in politics.

[Jane in NC]

Number one, I didn't bring up racism as in saying it was remotely okay or tolerable. You're assuming that just because of my stating the coach's words within his home should've remained private, even if I think they were awful things to say.

 

I'm using the abortion as an example because it's obvious that people should (as mentioned in my OP) always accept others' beliefs and practices without question, but never be able to stand up for their own.

 

Why is it okay for ME (meaning me or anyone else) to be offended, but never okay for ME (or anyone else) to have an opinion or belief that offends?

I am really confused.

 

Your opinions are just that.  You may choose to keep your opinions to yourself, to articulate them to friends and family or to broadcast them.  Once your opinion is stated, it seems that you are opening a door for public discourse. 

 

We are sitting at your kitchen table, you give an opinion, I may agree or give a counter argument.  Or I may remain silent.  You seem to assume that you are the only offended party here (from the contrary opinion) and that no one can be offended by your words.  And if they are, it is their problem.  If my words offend you, it is my problem because I am not respecting your right to have an opinion.

 

Is it always my problem?

[StaceyinLA]

Where are they (in the US) not able to have this perspective?

 

Pretty much any and everywhere. I mean basically you can have the perspective, but you'll be belittled and ridiculed. Somehow that's okay.

 

 

Define "never okay."

 

What does that MEAN. Have you been arrested for your feelings? Physically threatened or harmed? Duct tape? Waterboarded?

 

I am being snarky, but I am not understanding you and the assertion that it is not okay for you to have a belief that offends.

 

This very belief/thread offends me. But I believe in your right to have started and participated in it.

 

It probably is okay unless you actually voice it.

 

Plenty of what gets discussed on these boards offends me, but I rarely get involved in any of it, and surely don't attack and judge people because they hold different opinions than mine.

[albeto.]

My point was that there are right and wrong ways to address or speak out about opinions we disagree with (as the example you shared above also illustrates). My take on Stacey's statement about "ruin(ing) people's lives" was that she was essentially making that same point.

 

I'm not sure I understand her point. She just mentioned that in her opinion it is obvious that "people should... always accept others' beliefs and practices without question, but never be able to stand up for their own." From where is she seeing this trend of people being denied the right to speak their opinions and beliefs? I can't help but wonder if what she's really getting at is a kind of environment in which people get to speak their opinions and beliefs without getting "grief" for it. But I can't recall if she said that. It's rather confusing because she cannot point to an example of a suppression of the first amendment in this context (which is why I think she means without getting grief), but then that's quite hypocritical because the offensive comment that she'd like to stand without criticism is almost always in response to something. In other words, if people followed her advice, the comment being targeted wouldn't have been made in the first place, because they would have bit their tongues instead of making their comment! See, it's all very confusing to me. 

[Truscifi]

I think this is the sort of thing that the OP is referring too.

 

Nothing like forcing groupthink on the population. If you don't tow our line we will punish you.

 

As vile as his statements were he should be able to voice them without sanctions of any kind.

 

Free speech and all that.

 

Now if the fans and the players didn't like what he had to say, they are free to leave and spend their money elsewhere.

 

I think collectively ignoring is far more productive then collectively punishing and forcing people to express and hold "appropriate" opinions. I think people by their nature don't like being forced to do anything, even if it is for the "greater good". I think it just gets people hackles up and doesn't really change them. They may be going through the motions of PC behaviour but still hold racist or any other "ist" type of views.

 

As far as I know the government is in no way restricting his right to state his opinion, and I agree there should be no *government* sanction related to his statements.

 

If his statements violated the contract he signed with the NBA they are within their rights to respond as laid out in the contract.

[unsinkable]

Seriously? Wow. Yeah because deep down, I'm an awful person.

No, you're not.

 

:grouphug:

[StaceyinLA]

Well, I know what I would say to someone who could say 'he should have been taught to move on' if I were the Morones parent.

For someone who claims to not post controversial, you sure picked a doozy. IMO, those type of statements about bullying are shameful. Would you be brave enough to say these sentiments to the parents in person, after hearing them tell you about a boy who loved My Little Pony?

 

 

My bullying statements have been taken WAY out of context. I will say, however, that if *I* were that child's parents, I would have discussed with him beforehand that there may be those who wouldn't agree with his choice of backpack and might pick on him or say negative things. He would have the choice to bring it and stand up for his choice, or leave it at home.

 

Should the kids who relentlessly pick be reprimanded? Of course they should. I do believe, however, that a 9yo is old enough to understand that not everyone will agree with his choice of backpack.

[albeto.]

Pretty much any and everywhere. I mean basically you can have the perspective, but you'll be belittled and ridiculed. Somehow that's okay.

 

 

Do I understand correctly to say you think your opinion should be respected because all opinions should be equally respected? If so, the problem with this is that not all opinions are equally respectable, and those who try and prevent progress may witness their opinions being dissected and critiqued in the public square of popular opinion. As popular opinion progresses in time, those conventional opinions identified as being detrimental to society will be exposed as detrimental to society. Usually, the argument contains reason to explain this. The "belittling and ridiculing" may be examples of "shorthand," or succinct comments that apply humor to the situation to show the inherent problem with the idea being called out. You may not agree with the reason, but it's not a legitimate analogy to say that a lack of respect for an opinion is equal to it not being allowed to be shared. This would be an untrue statement. 

[StaceyinLA]

I am really confused.

 

Your opinions are just that.  You may choose to keep your opinions to yourself, to articulate them to friends and family or to broadcast them.  Once your opinion is stated, it seems that you are opening a door for public discourse. 

 

We are sitting at your kitchen table, you give an opinion, I may agree or give a counter argument.  Or I may remain silent.  You seem to assume that you are the only offended party here (from the contrary opinion) and that no one can be offended by your words.  And if they are, it is their problem.  If my words offend you, it is my problem because I am not respecting your right to have an opinion.

 

Is it always my problem?

 

It often depends on the opinion. Obviously some are more hot-button than others. Like I said, here I mentioned that I am not specifically FOR gay marriage, and that was immediately considered hate. It is not HATE. Whether it is a personal opinion due to religious beliefs, discomfort with the overall idea, even just not being to a point of understanding (and I'm using these as examples, not saying these would specifically be MY reasons), it doesn't mean there is hatred involved.

 

I certainly believe that my words can offend as much as anyone else's. My OP though is that society has reached a point where anyone's opinion about anything that doesn't line up with theirs is cause for whining, lawsuits, and just generally persecuting the opposition. That was really all it was about. 

[poppy]

I am honestly flabbergasted by this whole discussion. 

Pretty much any and everywhere. I mean basically you can have the perspective, but you'll be belittled and ridiculed. Somehow that's okay.

 

You are saying you feel belittled and ridiculed because you do not support gay marriage?  Just under 50% of Americans do not support the legalization of gay marriage. So you are in a minority, but just barely.

 

Perhaps it is your conscious talking?  I would not have said that, at all, except for the line you gave about only being against gay marriage due to your mental correlation between that topic and abortion. From the way you describe it, it sounds like you are kind of on the fence on the topic anyway, so perhaps criticism of your views hits a little too close to home. 

[HRAAB]

 

Why is it okay for ME (meaning me or anyone else) to be offended, but never okay for ME (or anyone else) to have an opinion or belief that offends?

 

This is what I'm not getting.  You have an opinion.  You are stating your opinion on this message board.  Some of your opinions are offensive to people here.  However, no one is stopping you from stating those opinions unless you break a board rule.  You've been stating your opinions in every post you make.  I don't see where your freedom to have personal opinions and state them has been denied.  No doubt I have opinions that would offend you, and if I choose to make them known, you are free to disagree, call me out on them, endeavor to persuade me to your point of view, and tell me you find them offensive. Having been in the minority many times in my family and community, it can 'feel' like I don't get to have my opinion, but I know that's not actually the case.  Of course I can have and state my opinion, but I might get told that it's offensive and have people debate me on it.  It would be pretty whiny of me to complain about it though.  

[AlmiraGulch]

I'm not sure I understand her point. She just mentioned that in her opinion it is obvious that "people should... always accept others' beliefs and practices without question, but never be able to stand up for their own." From where is she seeing this trend of people being denied the right to speak their opinions and beliefs? I can't help but wonder if what she's really getting at is a kind of environment in which people get to speak their opinions and beliefs without getting "grief" for it. But I can't recall if she said that. It's rather confusing because she cannot point to an example of a suppression of the first amendment in this context (which is why I think she means without getting grief), but then that's quite hypocritical because the offensive comment that she'd like to stand without criticism is almost always in response to something. In other words, if people followed her advice, the comment being targeted wouldn't have been made in the first place, because they would have bit their tongues instead of making their comment! See, it's all very confusing to me. 

 

:iagree:

 

The bolded is often the case.  People who have had the privilege of holding the "majority" belief or protected right for so incredibly long are unaccustomed to others vocalizing their dissent.  That part, the vocalization, is what has become more popular and common over the last, say, 25 - 30 years.  It makes people uncomfortable and they mistake it for being attacked or belittled, when really it's just people who have traditionally held their tongues actually speaking up and speaking out. 

[Mrs Mungo]

So, just because racism will likely always exist, we shouldn't fight against racist bigots? Is that really what you're trying to say? I can't wrap my head around that idea at all. 

 

http://www.isr.umich.edu/home/diversity/resources/white-privilege.pdf

 

http://freakonomics.com/tag/baby-names/

 

[J-rap]

I do agree with some of what you are saying (original post).  I remember first being conscious of this when I was in middle school and I had a teacher everyone was afraid of.  She was not unkind, just very strict and had a scary tone of voice.  My best friend's mother had my friend transferred out of that class, and I remember thinking it was such a strange response to the situation.  Just deal with it!  You're going to run into people like that everywhere and you can't always transfer out.

 

On the other hand, if we can do even just a little bit to make this world a better place, especially as we gain more insight into human nature and development, why not set that as our goal?  If we can make people more aware of bullying, for example, and how it just MIGHT permanently affect a child, why not do that? 

 

Just because something will always exist (there will always be poor...), doesn't mean we stop trying.

[SKL]

Do I understand correctly to say you think your opinion should be respected because all opinions should be equally respected? If so, the problem with this is that not all opinions are equally respectable. 

 

This is your opinion, to which you have a right.

 

[justasque]

As far as the business owner, I think it's a tough call. I think a private small business owner should have certain rights to stand up for what they believe morally and not be prosecuted. I stated above that I did not agree with that particular person's (the baker's) decision because I think to be truly Christ-like, she should've not denied the couple their cake. I don't think she was necessarily a good example of God's love, thereby fueling the proverbial fire.

I am curious about how you see this playing out. From what I understand from your posts, you feel that the baker did not make the right decision, but it should be her right to choose either way, without fearing a lawsuit because of breaking the public accommodations laws.

 

Do you feel this way for all of the categories typically in a public accommodations law (race, male/female, disability, religion, etc?) or just sexual orientation? Should it be illegal for a business owner to refuse to serve someone because they are black, or Asian, or white? Should it be illegal for a business owner to refuse service to Muslims, or to Christians, or to Jews? Or should we eliminate these laws and let business owners make their own decisions (and suffer any fallout from any resulting boycotts, etc.)?

 

Or should we keep the public accommodations laws but allow business owners to opt out if they want to refuse service based on a religious belief? (Whether it be a belief against homosexuality, or inter-racial marriage, or a specific nationality.)

 

It's an interesting issue, and I'd like to hear more from your perspective, as it seems to be a key part of the frustrations expressed in your OP.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think the BIGGEST problem for me is that people are pretending that we are in a "post-race" society, that racism isn't a problem. That school of thought has gone so far as to strike down parts of the Civil Rights Act. Clearly, racism is still an extremely big problem. Sticking our heads in the sand doesn't solve problems. 

[AlmiraGulch]

I certainly believe that my words can offend as much as anyone else's. My OP though is that society has reached a point where anyone's opinion about anything that doesn't line up with theirs is cause for whining, lawsuits, and just generally persecuting the opposition. That was really all it was about. 

 

I actually agree with you to a point.  

 

However, I don't think people speaking out for being persecuted or discriminated against for being who they are (Black, female, gay, whatever) is accurately classified as whining.  And I do think that being unlawfully discriminated against is absolutely the reason for a lawsuit.  

[kewb]

Well, you haven't misconstrued everything I said.

 

It is true that I'm not necessarily in support of gay marriage, though I said I wouldn't specifically vote against it or protest it. I do love those in my family that are gay, and believe they deserve happiness. 

 

As far as voting, I'm saying that politicians who are in favor of gay marriage (because let's assume I'm not going to be voting for anyone other than a politician to hold a political office), are generally pro-choice. Certainly this is because if they are in favor of gay marriage, they most likely have liberal leanings and in general that means they are pro-choice.

 

I would choose to vote pro-life over pro-gay-marriage, which in turn means I'd be voting against gay marriage.

 

Now, if there were a candidate that was pro-life and also pro-gay-marriage (and obviously had other views I agreed with), I wouldn't hesitate to support that candidate because I wouldn't specifically vote against gay marriage just for the sake of being anti-gay-marriage.

 

I hope you can still find my position fascinating.

 

As far as the business owner, I think it's a tough call. I think a private small business owner should have certain rights to stand up for what they believe morally and not be prosecuted. I stated above that I did not agree with that particular person's (the baker's) decision because I think to be truly Christ-like, she should've not denied the couple their cake. I don't think she was necessarily a good example of God's love, thereby fueling the proverbial fire.

 

I do still find it fascinating.  Thank you for clarifying the voting issue.  From a candidate standpoint your position makes sense.

 

You want those family members who are homosexuals to be happy but are okay with them not being able to have the benefits and protections under the law that you enjoy.  If I am understanding correctly-if you were given the opportunity to vote on whether or not homosexuals could get married you would choose not to vote.  That way you are not actively standing in the way of their civil rights but you are also not doing anything to assist them in having equal civil rights.

 

I respectfully disagree with your opinion of the cake baker.  

[albeto.]

I certainly believe that my words can offend as much as anyone else's. My OP though is that society has reached a point where anyone's opinion about anything that doesn't line up with theirs is cause for whining, lawsuits, and just generally persecuting the opposition. That was really all it was about. 

 

I find this claim impossible to accept when I see Fox News is still on the air. I see Bryan Fischer still on the air. I see Pat Robertson publicly claim the gays in San Francisco have rings that cut you and spread the AIDS when you shake hands. I don't see the lawsuits. I don't see the persecution from the progressive liberals. I have to conclude this is just a lamentation about losing special privileges that you grew up with and are accustomed to enjoying. The thing is, these special privileges are no longer acceptable because people are increasingly unwilling to allow themselves to submit to, and internalize, conventional standards that reduce their rights to participate fully as citizens of the United States. Whether these reductions have been protected by law or tradition, they're being challenged, as many injustices have been challenged in the past, and will be challenged in the future. 

 

I wonder if I'm the only one who sees irony in expressing the idea of feeling suppressed and bullied into some out of the way corner of the public sphere with the sentiments in the OP, "People are cruel. It was just life, and I dealt with it. I guess I just do not understand why people these days can't do the same." If I understand the you correctly, you are suggesting others are being cruel by whining, bringing lawsuits, and generally persecuting you and people like you. Interestingly, the solution suggested in your OP was "deal with it" and stop whining. It seems ironic to me that it does not then apply here in this example.  

[SKL]

I am honestly flabbergasted by this whole discussion. 

 

You are saying you feel belittled and ridiculed because you do not support gay marriage?  Just under 50% of Americans do not support the legalization of gay marriage. So you are in a minority, but just barely. 

 

But if she were a business owner, the relative worldwide popularity of her opinion (which is way over 50%, by the way) would be no protection whatsoever if the right people ganged up in the right way against her business interests.

 

So basically you can have any opinion you want, but you'd better censor it but good if you participate in the US economy.  Or have pretty much any aspirations whatsoever.

 

Thomas Jefferson would never have been allowed to write the Declaration of Independence under these rules.  Nor would Abraham Lincoln have been able to write the Emancipation Proclamation.  Pretty much nobody would have been able to write or do anything of value because everyone has expressed some politically incorrect thought at some time or other.

 

[Joanne]

My bullying statements have been taken WAY out of context. I will say, however, that if *I* were that child's parents, I would have discussed with him beforehand that there may be those who wouldn't agree with his choice of backpack and might pick on him or say negative things. He would have the choice to bring it and stand up for his choice, or leave it at home.

 

Should the kids who relentlessly pick be reprimanded? Of course they should. I do believe, however, that a 9yo is old enough to understand that not everyone will agree with his choice of backpack.

 

I live in Katy, by god, Texas. The name of my town used to include a phrase about the most churches in a small town.

 

My youngest has wanted earrings since he was 9. I told him he was too young to understand the feedback and response he would get as a very young male in this community. I think we were still homeschooling at the time; this also influenced his peer group and experience. I told him to wait until 13 and, if he still wanted his ears pierced, I would allow it. He waited, and never once waivered from the desire.

 

At 13, I felt he was better able to handle the varied response. It has been 2 years, and he has had some stupid, silly, wonky feedback.

 

So, I agree with coaching, guiding, and preparing our kids for the realities of the choices they make.

[StaceyinLA]

So, just because racism will likely always exist, we shouldn't fight against racist bigots? Is that really what you're trying to say? I can't wrap my head around that idea at all.

 

http://www.isr.umich.edu/home/diversity/resources/white-privilege.pdf

 

http://freakonomics.com/tag/baby-names/

 

 

 

Didn't say this at all, and certainly don't think that. In the racist issue, I strictly meant that someone who makes a racist comment in what should be in the privacy of their own home, really shouldn't get the entire country in an uproar. I could understand if it was violent or threatening, but just ignorance?

[Mrs Mungo]

But if she were a business owner, the relative worldwide popularity of her opinion (which is way over 50%, by the way) would be no protection whatsoever if the right people ganged up in the right way against her business interests.

 

So basically you can have any opinion you want, but you'd better censor it but good if you participate in the US economy.

It is true that if you hold an unpopular opinion that people might boycott your business or protest against it or whatever. That is because free speech is a two way street. Both sides get free speech.

 

Or have pretty much any aspirations whatsoever.

 

Thomas Jefferson would never have been allowed to write the Declaration of Independence under these rules.  Nor would Abraham Lincoln have been able to write the Emancipation Proclamation.  Pretty much nobody would have been able to write or do anything of value because everyone has expressed some politically incorrect thought at some time or other.

Are you saying that Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation because he lived in a more tolerant time when people were better able to hold unpopular opinions? That is one of the most hilarious claims I have ever seen on this board, and that is saying something.

[StaceyinLA]

I actually agree with you to a point.

 

However, I don't think people speaking out for being persecuted or discriminated against for being who they are (Black, female, gay, whatever) is accurately classified as whining. And I do think that being unlawfully discriminated against is absolutely the reason for a lawsuit.

I can respect and understand that position.

[Mrs Mungo]

Didn't say this at all, and certainly don't think that. In the racist issue, I strictly meant that someone who makes a racist comment in what should be in the privacy of their own home, really shouldn't get the entire country in an uproar. I could understand if it was violent or threatening, but just ignorance?

Ignorant? What does that word mean to you?

 

He wanted his *half black girlfriend* to stop hanging out with *black people* in public because he found it personally embarrassing. He said it *to her*. If she finds it offensive enough to tell the world his private beliefs, she can do that. If the public finds it offensive enough to push back, then the public can push back. That's how free speech works. We ALL have free speech. Free speech IN NO WAY means you can say whatever you please without fear of facing repercussions.

[idnib]

Someone, and make no mistake it will be a ruthless minority, will take advantage of our situation and we will lose more freedom than we are currently losing. <snip>Just ask the good people of German, Iran, China, or Russia if a small nutty minority can hijack a reasonable majority. 

 

I don't have to look to those countries; I can see it right here in the good ol' U.S.  :001_rolleyes: