This is entirely "silencing opposition through force". Are you really advocating that we should shun people in our supposedly progressive society? It has nothing to do with whether or not he is right and everything to do with what kind of society we want to have. Apparently, there are a lot of vocal people who want to live in Salem, Mass and not America.
YES, we should shun people. We should shun those that praise shootings of jewish centers, we should shun those who claim that their race is superior to another race, we should shun those that claim that their sex is superior to another sex, etc. The ability to be ALLOWED to say what we want to say, does not mean that we should NOT be allowed to respond in kind to what people say.
Also, private companies can fire people for anything... in at-will employment states. California is a right to work state and they absolutely cannot fire anyone for anything. If Mozilla had fired Eich, he would likely be suing their butts off right now.
1) California is not a right to work state, and you aren't using that term correctly (right to work is only about the hiring process and unions)
2) In states that aren't at-will, you can fire your employee for any real business-related reason. A CEO who drives away users is a valid and legitimate reason to fire them, and Mozilla wouldn't be held in contempt in any way.
It's tradition. Who cares what it is? Just because you prefer what is traditional, you should be refused jobs you are qualified for and treated as if you are a criminal? It absolutely is tradition that people defend. Do you think anything would have changed if it was polygamy being discussed here?
Yes, just because you think that black people are inferior to white people, you SHOULD be refused jobs you're qualified for and treated as a piece of shit. Yes, you SHOULD be refused jobs you're qualified for when you actively try to keep people from having the same civil rights as others because they're gay.
As for your question: yes, I think this would have changed if polygamy was being discussed, though this is a question with a very interesting and relevant historical precedent against it.
I'm not sure I understand or respect the propensity to dilute the term "bigot" today. If you think something is a sin and oppose society validating that sin, how does that make you intolerant?
big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Nope, this isn't being dilluted at all. Likewise, if you think it is a sin for a black person and a white person to get married, and you oppose society validating that sin, you are ALSO intolerant. Yes.
I'm sick and tired of the completely ridiculous idea that tolerance means that we just don't care at all about what people say. It isn't about validating all opinions, it is making sure that all people are treated by the same standards, and this is a VERY important difference that any reasonable person should be able to understand.
In my opinion, it depends on what the service is. If it's photographing a gay wedding and the person doesn't want to do it, fine. If it's eating hamburgers at a hamburger joint, that's wrong.
If it's photographing a wedding of black people, but you hate black people, it's fine? I'm sorry, this is bullshit.
It's still easy enough to disagree on calling marriage a "right".
The problem is that "marriage", by the legal definition, is mandatorily exclusionary. There is a far longer list of situations that marriage does not cover than situations it does. My argument for getting the government out of marriage rests on the fact that the government shouldn't have any interest in whether people are married or not. And I don't want them recognizing "civil unions" or any crap like that, either. The only thing I want the government to care about is who depends on you and who your next of kin is. I was pretty clear about that in my previous post on the subject.
I'm sorry, but this is inexorably tied up with marriage, and you can like it or not, but that's an entirely different argument. Marriage is a massively important institution in our society, and plays a great role in how a GREAT MANY laws play out, how things like housing is set up, how insurance is given, how custody is awarded, how inheritances fall out, etc. Since there is no way to remove this idea as a bedrock, and to remove it from the thousands of laws, rules, regulations, etc. in place, we need to address it, and thus it IS a basic right that is VERY important in our society.
One of my biggest complaints with the gay rights movement is that they claim to have "morality" on their side, they claim they are the tolerant ones, they claim that agreeing with them won't affect you in any way, and they claim they are only interested in equal rights. But as a movement, they have failed at nearly every single one of these things.
Marriage still isn't equal to this day, and they have no interest in making it equal. If it was why is polygamy still illegal? Why is incestual marriage still illegal? Why is any form of marriage illegal? That doesn't sound equal.
This isn't their fault, it is yours. This isn't people disagreeing, it is people refusing to let them have the same rights. It is banning people from joining because of their sexuality, it is denied access to healthcare, to hospital visits, to services. This is no thoughtcrime, it is action. Stop for second and realize that.
Further, get the fuck over these terrible arguments. Why is polygamy still illegal? Because of the history of oppression and treatment of women as property that has gone with it (and still goes with it today). Sure, it's worth considering, but it has a dirty past. Why is incest still illegal? Why are you being a moron? I know you're not a moron, but you're asking why we frown on establishing incest as a social norm? Equal means that we are all treated as equals as the default, not that we can't say hmm, the terrible risk of normalizing inbreeding on our society is risky, let's take that off the table.
Honestly, if you're going to say this is like incest, why even bother to take you seriously? What's next, why can't I marry a duck? Does this mean that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry if ducks can't? Ugh.
Next of kin rights have not improved one bit during this movement. If it had, why do siblings who live together still have an impossible time assigning next of kin rights to each other? Cousins? Friends? If you don't want to get married or can't still for a myriad of reasons, you still have all the same problems that existed before. Nope, that situation hasn't improved at all.
THIS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT ENTIRELY. Yes, other things can be improved. Also, we need to do something about tort reform. Also, our immigration policies are in trouble. That next of kin rights are ALSO tied up in marriage doesn't make the argument entirely about this thing, and about the many different forms of next-of-kind rights.
Intolerance among gay rights activists is probably worse than it has ever been. I guess it's okay to be intolerant of the people you views as intolerant (even when they actually aren't intolerant) and crucify them, then turn around and puff your chest over your own tolerance and acceptance of people you don't agree with.
This is the argument of a child. Tolerance, again, doesn't mean that all arguments are equal, it means that we must treat people with equal respect, that people shouldn't be allowed rights or denied them based simply on how they are born. Not allowing people to stop people from marrying because of bigotry is not being intolerant, unless you want to play a game of semantics that ignores all context.
So yes, being tolerant means being intolerant of those who would deny rights to gay people. Yes, being tolerant means being intolerant to those who would deny rights to black people. Yes, being tolerant means being intolerant to those who would deny rights to women.
Crotale: Employers can't discriminate based upon religion because of the federal laws that protect against that: not at ALL because of the constitution. I have no idea what weird train of logic you attempted to form immediate after you brought that up, however. It was weird. Anyways, the constitution says that the GOVERNMENT can't abridge those rights, but private individuals (and companies) are not the government--they simply have to obey fed, state and local laws.
