Skip to main content

This diary will be quick.  This is a new meme on the right that burns me up and it's en vogue with my religious right wing friends.  They use the Dan Savage incident where he called some fundamentalists "pansy asses" at a anti-bullying seminar an example of liberal intolerance.  Now we've got the Chick Fil-A debacle and mayors in different cities telling them that they're not welcome in their cities for their anti gay stance.  Well, this has got my religious friends INFURIATED.  

"Liberals are so intolerant!"

Of course this is to say that liberals are elitist hypocrites and Republicans are the moral, salt of the earth folk we all come to know and love.  This has turned into a new meme, where the charge is "You're intolerant of my intolerance!  You're bigoted against bigots!"  When I hear that, it's basically saying "You're just as bad as I am!"  Now, I don't really like the idea of telling someone you can't have a business in a certain area just because of their religion (no matter how backwards and false it is), that part I dislike.  I also didn't like Savage using pansy ass in an anti-bullying campaign.  But guess what, the people that walked out on him were far more close minded!  They were not going to question their bibles at all!

If someone's religious convictions are going to lower the quality of life of another group of individuals, or wants society to advance laws based on a holy book that not everyone believes in, then sorry, you don't pass Go, you don't collect $200.  I'm all for people boycotting Chick Fil-A and never going there again.  They give to hate groups and are fundamentalist Christians who are inflexible when it comes to marriage equality.  But this whole being intolerant of Christians thing is just scare mongering.  Their belief system is rigid and being called out for it is not being intolerant, it's just being observant.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  the Savage thing was a year ago... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass

    and it was high school kids who walked out.

    As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

    by jbou on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:50:25 PM PDT

  •  sujigu - there have been several recent diaries (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, annecros, Bill W

    about Chick Fil-A here at DKOS and the debate has centered on the First Amendment issues. Any mayor who states that CFA cannot open a restaurant because of the views of the owner, and his contributions to political causes and ballot initiatives, is violating the First Amendment. That position would never stand a constitutional challenge. What a city would have to show is that CFA has a pattern of actively discriminating at some of the hundreds of restaurants that are already open. That would be a reason to deny a permit. Actions, not words. The words are protected speech.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:51:13 PM PDT

    •  The Mayor can certainly say a (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, CherryTheTart, homogenius

      restaurant can't have a permit. What he can't do is actually withhold a permit, if the necessary conditions have been met.  Just as a public records clerk can object to making a record of a marriage because the partners are of the same gender, but she can't refuse to actually record same.
       "Say anything, but do the right thing."

      The Constitution does not address the behavior of individuals and private corporations, other than in the former's role as citizens and their obligations to

      vote
      hold office
      serve on juries
      propose laws
      provide material support
      enforce the laws

      Engaging in commerce makes individuals and corporate entities subject to certain laws in exchange for the special benefits the agents of government provide (securing the premises, enforcing the collection of debt, insuring safe transport and passage, guaranteeing the currency, etc.)
      Our commercial class may be under the illusion that they are self-generating and self-sustaining, but they're wrong. Absent a civil safety net there can be no commerce because every assets is liable to being lifted without it even being considered theft. For a theft to occur there has to be a commitment to private property.
      A rat cannot steal because the sense of property is not there.

      Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage"

      by hannah on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:53:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  agreed. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, annecros, VClib

      i can see coming out against their views, but Boston and SF  saying that they want to keep the restaurant out of their cities?  really?!?  do the elected officials there even know the 1st amendment??

    •  You said it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CherryTheTart, Cassandra Waites

      "Actions, not words."

      The mayors would need to take action to actively deny the permits. Simply saying you don't want to is not denying anyone anything.


      Not this mind and not this heart, I won't rot • Mumford & Sons

      by jayden on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:05:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good diary. (6+ / 0-)

    I was not going to comment, but you have received two "meh" comments and this diary deserves better IMO.

    The christianistas are trying to turn the tables using this new tactic.  It is a pretty good defensive ploy.  And some hard to defeat.

    There is one way I know to defeat it and that is the Mayor Menino way: in your face. Never argue the moral value of your position. Progressives always do that and it is the best way I know of to lose.

    You just say "Yeah I am intolerant of those who fuck with gay folks just because they can. I have passed the conversation base and I am now headed toward the punch you pascudnyaks right in the mouth base.  You want to be first?"

    Can you tell I am not a progressive?

    I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

    by CherryTheTart on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:32:27 AM PDT

  •  Sometimes they're right. (7+ / 0-)

    Intolerance is good and so is disobedience and non-compliance in the face of abuse.  When someone is abusing another, whether physically or verbally, it's entirely appropriate to object.
    Why should be tolerate objectionable behavior?

    The suggestion that liberals should put up with all sorts of incivil and abusive behavior reveals a misunderstanding of what liberal means.  A liberal person lets other people do what they want, but that doesn't mean letting them get away with evil, if it is proved, without imposing restraints.
    In a sense, it's a matter of timing. Conservatives want to prevent behavior they imagine might happen and might be wrong--i.e. to preempt action. Liberals are content to wait until something happens and then take corrective action to see it doesn't happen again.  The liberal existence is more risky. That's what safety nets are for.  Conservatives would prefer to just tie (secure) everyone up to begin with.

    Risk is scary.  That's why we have Wall Street full of financial engineers dreaming up insurance and derivatives and other risk-avoidance schemes, not of which work.  But, it doesn't matter, 'cause it's other people's money they're playing with. Indeed, that's the beauty of money.  For all the players can tell, it's all virtual profit and loss. Dollars are no more real than Monopoly money. Where we go wrong is in believing that they are and pretending we can't make more.

    Conservatives are short on irony; liberals need more make believe.

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage"

    by hannah on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:33:36 AM PDT

  •  My town doesn't allow Walmart... (5+ / 0-)

    ...to set up shop within city limits for pretty much the same reason that Chick-Fil-A is being stiff-armed in Boston and Chicago: Bad Corporate Citizenship. Period.

    I really don't care that banning a firm from operating or expanding operations from a jurisdiction might not pass Constitutional muster. A certain segment of the Financial Elite luxuriates in the ability to fund hate speech and political subversion with "good ole fashioned. red-blooded American free enterprise principles", and I'm at peace being politically inconsistent on this point. There's a disproportionate number of those characters taking turns hiding behind what passes for "morality" and exercising to the fullest extent possible bare-knuckle, at best amoral take-no-prisoners capitalism.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:59:41 AM PDT

  •  On this site (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart, annecros

    I was recently told I didn't belong, because I offered a viewpoint not in agreement with the majority. Even when someone pointed out that the rules allow for the topic I was bringing up, one person insisted I shouldn't be here. Intolerance might be worse on the right, but it's found on all sides of the specturm.

  •  When Christians talk about (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pholkhero, Brown Thrasher, Tonedevil

    being "oppressed" in this country, they really just mean "you're infringing on my right to oppress others."

    Also, I don't see how not letting Chick-Fil-A open stores in a specific city violates the constitution, as corporations are not people, and thus are not entitled to all of the same rights.

    •  Agree on part 1. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bill W

      part 2, though...how could you prevent it?  what would be the rationale for refusing a business based on the owner's beliefs, rather than any discriminatory action?  and how could that rationale not then be applied to progressive-friendly businesses in, say, the South??

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        I don't disagree that it's problematic, I just don't see how it's technically unconstitutional, since the ban is on the company itself, and not individuals within the company.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site