OT: Politics

[PBSteve]

Perhaps you should define bigotry or even intolerance in absolute terms. That'd give us a starting point.

You called me a bigot, why don't you tell us what you meant.

[ironyusa]

You called people assholes for having a differing political opinion. Seems pretty self explanatory. Don't dodge the question.

[PBSteve]

You called people assholes for having a differing political opinion. Seems pretty self explanatory. Don't dodge the question.

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/Submit
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

in·tol·er·ant
ˌinˈtäl(ə)rənt/Submit
adjective
not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.
"he was intolerant of ignorance"

...indeed.

[ironyusa]

What previously mentioned political issues are intolerant? By that, I mean platform issues.

[PBSteve]

What previously mentioned political issues are intolerant? By that, I mean platform issues.

Refusing to grant legally eligible citizens a marriage license due to personal beliefs.

[ironyusa]

Nope.

[PBSteve]

Nope.

[ironyusa]

Hate speech being a limitation of free speech being a proper intolerance of intolerance. It's far beyond not accepting or being able to find an acceptable common ground legal definition of marriage. Intolerance of intolerance, again, is why there are limits to freedom of religious exercise when it endangers it's members or others. The first amendment outlines some pretty solid tolerances and we should be intolerant of things that threaten those ideas.

Just because you claim the moral high ground doesn't mean you actually have it.

[AndrewTheWookie]

So let me get this straight. It's totes ok to hate gay people, and elected officials can break the law to fuck over people from seeking their legal rights, all cause they're the icky gays. But someone hates homophobes? Too far dude, too far.

Is that about right?

...

[PBSteve]

Hate speech being a limitation of free speech being a proper intolerance of intolerance. It's far beyond not accepting or being able to find an acceptable common ground legal definition of marriage. Intolerance of intolerance, again, is why there are limits to freedom of religious exercise when it endangers it's members or others. The first amendment outlines some pretty solid tolerances and we should be intolerant of things that threaten those ideas.

Just because you claim the moral high ground doesn't mean you actually have it.

As far as I can decipher, nothing you just said is really relevant to what has been argued. The Constitution is a legal framework, not a philosophical treatise. It outlines legal requirements and limits of tolerance, not moral ones.