Tolerance

[Duelist925]

I will tolerate chick fil a's stance. Freedom of speech, they can say whatever they want.

Same as any racist can say what he wants.

By that same token, tho, "tolerate" Does not mean I won't call them out on it. They are perfectly free to say "I dont like fags" and I am perfectly free to say "Fuck you chick a fil a, I won't be eating at your establishment and i feel sorry for the vitriol this is going to pour on your employees."

[smileyeagle1021]

Tolerance goes only so far. Chick-Fil-A wants to say I'm immoral, I'm going to hell, whatever, they have the right to that opinion and to express it. But the moment they begin trying to take my rights away, then there is not a force on this planet that will stop me from standing up to them. Oh, and for the record, they donate to a group who's mission statement is to "cure the disease of homosexuality".
The only thing more deafening in this debate than Chick-Fil-A and their Christian supporters defending them, is the absolute and utter silence from Christians opposing them... I have heard absolutely zero people opposing them because of their Christianity, the closest I've come is people opposing them in spite of their Christianity. And then those Christians who do oppose inequality shake their heads in sorrow asking why everyone thinks that Christians are bigots.

[Rageaholic]

I used to feel the same way. I figured that just because some people viewed something differently, I shouldn't be too hard on them (free speech and all). But this was before hearing all the whining done by the right wing about how they feel soooooo oppressed by some alledged liberal conspiracy. In reality, the "liberals" only want equal rights for people. They are reacting in response to these far right extremists who want to stay in the dark ages. They spread all thess hatred and lies, but when people react, they play the victim card.

So while there are some lengths I wouldn't go to (like mocking children who don't know any better), I can't take any of these pundits seriously when they play the victim card. Most of the time, the "persecution" they experience is just people not agreeing with their outdated views.

[siead_lietrathua]

i dont really see it as alot of controversy. the company stated it's belifes. people reacted to those belifes. the right of free speech doesn't mean people have to like or agree with what you say, it just means you can say it.
to make a random overarching comparison:
instead of supporting the anti-equal marrige movement, let's say chick-fil-a CEO said he condones dog-fighting, and were using the company donation write-offs to fund a group that was lobbying congress to legalize dog-fighting.
noone would be the least bit shocked at companies pulling out of partnerships, or people refusing to eat there and encouraging others not to. after all, it's their rights as consumers and businesses to align themselves with companies that have a similar standpoint on such a controversial issue.
that's all this is, in the end. chick-fil-a said they stand for and will monetarily support cause x. those that do not support cause x are not required to support, work with, purchase from or otherwise deal with chick-fil-a.

tl;dr: it's right of free speech, on BOTH sides.

edit:
because i love cartoons. this is what it reminds me of when people say that telling an organization that they need to stop forcing their belifes on those that don't belive them is persecution:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3I6eIowAe7...ng+Cartoon.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_URZM4fTat9...st-cartoon.png

[AdminAssistant]

The controversy has caused me a problem because DAMN I love their chicken sandwiches and their customer service.

[Gravekeeper]

You cannot expect or demand people be tolerent of your intolerance.

Simple as that.

[Mytical]

I absolutely agree that forcing inequality on others is intolerance..but expressing an opinion about it is often met with such..vitrol it just makes me wonder. I mean is it hypocritical to say "We want tolerance for all." Then not to be tolerant of those who disagree?

[HYHYBT]

Tolerance means, basically, live and let live. We don't have to like each other, whether the reasons for dislike are reasonable or not, but I don't interfere in how you live your life and you don't interfere in how I live mine.

Now, the two sides of, for example, the gay marriage issue are not equally situated as far as interference goes. Allowing gay couples to marry does nothing to the way people who don't happen to approve of that live their lives. So that's a tolerant position, at least up to that point. On the other hand, *not* allowing gay couples to marry is a serious intrusion into their lives, denying important legal rights which either are expensive to arrange piecemeal or, in some of the most important cases, flat out impossible to accomplish except by marriage. So that position is not at all live-and-let-live, and therefore is intolerant.

And that's as far as "tolerance" goes.

It's not intolerance to refuse to be pushed around.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, what a tangled bit of social questioning.

To be honest, I do not think that opinions about limiting the civil rights of another person are as valid or correct as opinions about equal treatment of all individuals. They're not wrong, per se, being opinions, but I cannot think of a situation where they are not based upon either misinformation or outright falsehood.

Now, I do not think they should be prevented from stating their opinions. In fact, I will fight for their right to make those statements as part of my own opinions regarding equal treatment.

Being tolerant of other people making decisions about their own lives is not the same thing as being tolerant of other people making decisions about other peoples' lives. Which is why this so quickly becomes so very heated. If it just stopped at voicing opinions, it wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue; after all, in this case, the company's anti-gay stance was already pretty much common knowledge for anyone who really cared.

Some things should not be tolerated. No action taken for the purpose of oppressing another should be considered tolerable in a truly free society.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

The recent Chick-Fil-A controversy has caused me a problem here. No, not about Chick-Fil-A itself..never have been to the place, but a little bit about the hypocrisy that has surfaced..and not from Chick-Fil-A (though they of course have their share).

People are up in arms because CFA is not showing tolerance, but isn't it a bit hypocritical? I mean..ok..I don't agree with it, but shouldn't tolerance run BOTH ways? Also..people are confusing the policy of the person in charge with the people in the chain of command..don't WE (those who are members of CS.COM that is) normally take umbrage at when people put management policies on us?

This doesn't stop with CFA. People seem to go a bit overboard with slamming anybody who doesn't support gay marriage, etc..or makes negative comments on such things. I am a straight male who happens to support gay rights, and in fact equal rights for everybody in the world. That doesn't make me superior to somebody who doesn't support such rights, or any more right then them however. The world climate is changing to where those of us who support these rights are becoming more numerous then those who don't. Lets not persecute those who think differently then us however. Lead by example. Tolerance goes a long way to changing peoples mind, not bashing people until they think a certain way.

I know that what I am saying probably won't be popular. It's easy to jump on the band wagon and to get angry when somebody says they don't agree..but think on this. In order to make a better world, we have to lead by example, not oppressing others freedom to say whatever they want..even if we disagree.

P.S. This could have gone so many places..Social Woes, Politics..I chose Religion because it seemed the right place, if not please feel free to move it.