"Tolerance" Is Not Always Tolerant

[Anonymous]

Before I begin this post, I will say that I am a libertarian. Being a libertarian, I ascribe to the "you do whatever you want" kind of mentality. I support and care very deeply for the LGBTQ community. I generally want people to do whatever they want, as long as they are not harming others in society and are not making me pay for their choices. For example, if you want to go to college, go, but I shouldn't have to pay for you to do that. If you want an abortion, fine, but don't make me or others pay for your prior choices (through my tax dollars).

HOWEVER, I often become very frustrated about how the word "tolerance" is thrown around in this country (United States).

I think that there should be "tolerance". The United States especially was built on a melting pot of individuals from a variety of different cultures coming together to create a unified nation. Today, we are even more diverse culturally and ideologically than we were then. I think this is great. We should be open to other cultures, ideas, religions, etc. and acknowledge our fellow countrymen, even if their backgrounds/ideals are different than ours.

Unfortunately, tolerance only seems to extend to politically correct and socially acceptable concepts. Contrarily, religion seems to be taking the brunt of the tolerance inconsistency. If people want to marry whoever they want to (which I fully support), then people of all religions should be able to practice their religion how they choose. If they feel like its against their religion to bake a cake for a wedding, then don't force them. It's their loss in business. If a Muslim woman wants to wear a burka, she shouldn't be shamed (another popular word today) for her religious choice. She shouldn't be told that she's being forced to wear her religious garb, and then promptly told to embrace feminism.

Tolerance is about accepting the the variety of differences between us, not just some specially selected, socially praised concepts.

[Library]

In other words, double standards is the reason why tolerance isn't always tolerant.

[myTake Owner]

Correct :)

[Rocket_Queen]

I just want to say, thank you!!!

[Josht13]

why be tolerant to intolerance? These cakes you are talking about are open to the public if you can't do your job why take it and no one should be tolerant of that bullshit.

[myTake Owner]

That is not correct. These cakes are sold by a privately held business. As a privately held business, a bakery should be able to sell their cakes to the customers they want to and not have to violate their beliefs. There are plenty of bakeries that would be happy to make a cake for a gay wedding.
How is refusing to bake a cake intolerant? They aren't questioning the LGBTQ member about his lifestyle. They're not trying to convince him that what he's doing is "wrong". They just don't want to violate their religious beliefs. In this country (via the United States Constitution), the government can neither establish a religion nor can they prevent the free expression of one.

[Josht13]

Religious beliefs have no place in a business that is open to the PUBLIC, if someone has deeply held beliefs that they don't want to serve blacks how does that make it right if you want to be a business that gets to operate with the government you have to serve all the people it's like a muslim who would work at a cafe and refuse to serve the pork they shouldn't have taken the job then. I didn't really want to get into this but their religious beliefs go completely against the law and separation of church and state.

[myTake Owner]

@Josht13 If you read my comments carefully, you will realize the distinction that I'm making about these businesses. I am never advocating or saying that it's okay for people to turn down gay customers in every circumstance. Rather, I am suggesting that when that individual is producing goods/services especially for a service that goes against their religion, then they have a right to refuse service. I'm suggesting that a Catholic priest should not have to host a gay wedding if it's against his beliefs. A person baking a cake, taking pictures, or wedding planning should not to be forced to participate in this service as well. I AM NOT suggesting that a cake baker could refuse to bake a birthday cake for a gay person. The separation of church and state has to do with a government not establishing a religion. Read your Constitution! Since when is an individual's personal choice become synonymous with "the state"? That is totally ludicrous.

[Josht13]

A church doesn't pay taxes and isn't a technical business according to the government a bakery is completely different. So what do you think only religious views should be sacred I can't say I don't want to serve blacks it's my deeply held belief? By not baking the cake they are saying fuck off. They do not have a right to discriminate on who they give their products to. Now I think that they don't have to make a specific product of the cake they can just say we don't sell that but they have to sell them the cakes that are advertised and that they claim they are selling to the public, I don't give a shit how deeply held your beliefs are, the business has to follow the rules if they want to sell to the public and get advantages from the government you gotta sell to the citizens.

[myTake Owner]

While it is true that churches are usually exempt from taxes, there are exceptions on property tax when the property is being used for other things other than charitable work, (like renting out the property). Churches are open to the public, just as private shops are. But that is neither here nor there.
The point is that there are parallels between a cake baker and a priest. Both individuals are refusing their service (both are paid for their services) on religious grounds. Based on the Constitution, individuals have the right to practice their religion freely.
Also your asserting a flawed parallel between the African American customer and the gay customer. There are no religions that doctrinally oppose any specific race of people (not that I know of).
I can see that we're not going to agree in this area. As I said above, I am a staunch LGBTQ supporter. However, I think it's wrong to refuse those of religious conviction the ability to adhere to those convictions.

[Josht13]

Are you saying only religious views should be respected? This doesn't sound very fair.

[Josht13]

There also are religions that go against race (not the biggest ones sure) and you could argue some Muslims do that who are against the western world. Don"t take the Job if you can't do it. if we want to get technical they are totally discriminating against gay people on the grounds of a bullshit law with a book that has a thousand other bullshit laws they don't adhere to, all you have to do is bake a cake how is that even supporting homosexuals, I bet the south would be a great place every couple of stores being told we don't serve your kind, but no totally not discrimination although I'd it was a black person the. It's wrong.

[myTake Owner]

No I am saying that religions should be tolerated as well as the LGBTQ community. By forcing a religious person to abandon their convictions, you are denying their right to religious liberty. The gay person in this scenario is having his rights respected. No one is asking him to change his lifestyle or persecuting him for it. His freedom to love and marry who he chooses in in tact.
I would also argue that Muslims (as you mention below) is a poor example of "a religion going against a race". Radical Islam who has been involved in the killings of others against the world are not doing so based on race, but based on religion. They are killing others because a directive in their holy book to kill those who do not proscribe to the Muslim faith, "The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressor..." Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141. So, here is another persecution of religion, definitely not race.

[myTake Owner]

Also, I hope you realize how offensive you are by bashing the U. S. Constitution and its bearings on freedom. Don't you realize that men signed that document knowing that they were going to be killed for their signatures? There was a story of one of the signers of the DOI who was forced to abandon his sick wife in his home to leave her to be killed by the invading British. His home was destroyed as well as his wife. That's just one story. I dare you to look up the names of the signers of the Constitution/Declaration of Independence. You will find horror stories of the ways they died in order to give you the freedom that you so pompously and ignorantly throw away. How dare you?
Also, a note to you: To give yourself and your argument credibility in the future, you may do well to avoid slang language and fragmented sentences. People will take you and your arguments more seriously. However, you are free to speak as you choose. That was just a word from the wise.

[Josht13]

I do think it fucks with their rights by not allowing them to buy from stores that sell to the public, it singles them out and is discriminatory also you know there are lots of bullshit religious beliefs some people don't want their kids to get modern medicine and do natural healing then when the kid dies what then huh, should we respect a parents choice to not have their kid taken to the hospital when they have a severe problem do we care about religion that much because it's all or nothing you can have that and not allow gays to buy cakes or neither they are both deeply held views. Since when did the laws ever give a shit about religious views and in my opinion they shouldn't also if you love the constitution so much then why is it illegal to not sell cakes to gays people get sued and lose for doing that so the law is in my side. I should probably mention I'm not American and I could piss on a constitution for all I care. also this isn't a marked essay I don't look at grammar.

[myTake Owner]

You're entitled to your beliefs. I disagree completely. Why should you bother consulting issues in a country that is not your own when you don't want to look at that country's laws? Do you know how absurd that is? That would be like me saying that I am going to apply American laws to the country of Jordan.
As an American, I feel a level in comfort saying that our laws and our Constitution were created in order to provide freedom, safety, and prosperity in our country. It's been successful. We are the most powerful country in the world. Our citizens (men and women, of all cultures, races and creeds) are allowed individual freedom and are given the opportunity to thrive.
If you look at the 1st Amendment to our Constitution, (which is also the first section of the Bill of Rights) it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of...

[myTake Owner]

the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So, our country was FOUNDED ON the protection of these rights, which include the free exercise of religion.

[myTake Owner]

Also, to comment on your inadequate and irrelevant example of parents not taking a child to a doctor. This would be classified as negligent homicide (barring the parent's intent to inflict the harm). If you are interested, you may check out the Model Penal Code, Section 210.4 (I believe).

[Fathoms77]

Being someone who leans toward the libertarian party myself, I should clarify and say the crux of the party really isn't "do whatever you want." That's not really what Objectivism is, at any rate.

[myTake Owner]

In a synopsis it is. Libertarianism is completely focused on individual independence and especially ascribes to the Austrian view of economics. Libertarians are usually for legalizing marijuana and prostitution. As a political science major (and now in graduate school), a few simple ways to define different political ideologies:
Liberalism values EQUALITY over ORDER and FREEDOM
Conservatism values ORDER over EQUALITY and FREEDOM
Libertarianism values FREEDOM over EQUALITY and ORDER
So, yes, libertarianism involves more than "do whatever you want". I tried to simplify the ideology for the purpose of this short dialogue. However, the crux of libertarianism is placing value individual fiscal and social responsibility rather than governmentally segmented directives in these areas.

[myTake Owner]

Additionally, libertarianism suggests that individuals must deal with the consequences of their poor (or exemplary) choices and not put the pressures of those choices on the community as a whole.

[Fathoms77]

Yes, thank you, I know all that. My point was simply that "do whatever you want" sounds like it advocates any behavior at all. That's where people get confused when it comes to Libertarians.

[Dimmu]

I dunno why people are obsessed with NIQAB
It's her choice , religion or not , it's her own business
Feminists always tell women you should be feminist or you will be wearing NIQAB
It's so disrespectful for women who wear NIQAB ,

[worldscolide]

I agree completely with this.