It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Tolerance Works Both Ways"

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
This is what Indiana Governor Mike Pence said in defense of the discriminatory gay rights bill that he's attempted to introduce.

In making this claim, Pence is saying that religious people should be allowed to have their feelings about gays and should be allowed to act upon them if they operate and own a place of business by denying gays a right to service.

Here, you can see, is the problem. While it's true that it is impossible to go inside someones head and fix whatevers wrong inside with their feelings, society very much can and must regulate what is allowed to come into the sphere of action.

But again, we need to understand what 'tolerance' means here. We need to get our terms of reference right if were going to deconstruct what it is Pence is attempting to convey by asking "does tolerance work both ways?'. Pence is basically likening "feelings". But the feelings were talking about here are not in anyway shape or form of the same category.

What society means by tolerance is bounded and limited by basic concepts like "peace" and "community". Tolerance in this sense is overcoming those obstacles that prevent empathic awareness of others, to see them not as some hated-object, but as living, breathing, experiencing subjects just like you. Tolerance, as it is used in everyday parlance, is designed to improve human well being, in particular, for those classes of humans marginalized by the power wielded by groups who have come to (irrationally) experience themselves as invulnerable.

The tolerance that society talks about, ultimately, is about peeling back layers of machismo thinking so that people can think more clearly about what matters in life. And so, instead of erecting conceptual barriers that allow us to hurt other human beings (such as gays being denied service at places of business) tolerance - properly conceptualized - is about expanding the breadth of human awareness to take in the feelings of the other person, in consideration, hopefully, of what our behaviors can have on their self-experience.

This, of course, is not what many staunch conservatives mean by 'tolerance'. In their minds, there is a blatant hypocrisy between what 'liberals' demand i.e. tolerance, and the liberal intolerance of conservative values. "Values' here, is somewhat stereotyped. Conservatives want to keep their way of talking - because they want to defend their ways of feeling - without acknowledging the real effects their actions will have on other people - on other nervous systems. And so they live more in the dissociated, truncated meanings of their languages (our values) without appreciating at a real human level what their actions would do to other people.

In thinking about this, I think it is vital to make a distinction between what conservatives assume tolerance means, and what tolerance means in a more holistic sense. For them, tolerance isn't so much a move towards acceptance as a reactionary response to liberal motivations. They take the word liberals blandish, and ask rhetorically "hey, what about tolerating us!?". They think they've 'caught' us in a bind, in a hypocritical position. However, this isn't the case. "Tolerance", for any person who's considered the idea from a feeling of compassionate awareness, means "what can I do, what can we all do, to make the world a better place for the most people possible?". The presence of suffering and the sheer gratuity of it - in the sense of what other people do, selfishly and unmindfully - seems to them to be something that can be corrected by mindfully opposing behaviors that emerge more out of unacknowledged fears, than as something that objectively and fundamentally deserves to be defended against.

Tolerance in a liberal society means 'tolerating'. Is this toleration of a gay clientele painful for conservatives? Or is it the notion - the after-the-fact reflection of 'hey, we just served a gay couple', what irks them? Part of the issue with this bill is the sheer superfluity of even inquiring into other peoples sexual status. What does it matter? Barring inappropriate public sexual behaviors (which can be regulated by places of business) how two people feel about each other - for this to even be something for a business owner to make an issue of, wreaks, absolutely stinks, of chauvinistic pretensions to power. If someone is minding their business - and in addition, has offered you their interest in your service - the proper and more enlightened response in such a situation is not "are you gay?', "but, hey thanks, how can I help you?"



+7 more 
posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
What I really need an explanation for is why are there those being descriminated against wanting to make someone take their money. I believe in boycotts. Speak with your spending.

If they don't like you or your beleifs why make them take your money to pay their bills!?! I really don't get it.

edit on 31-3-2015 by Iamthatbish because: predict a text totally winning



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

Because this law, regardless of what it may actually say, comes across as government endorsement of discrimination. Loom at who Pence had with him at the closed-door signing. Not folks not for their welcoming stance of diversified orientation, that's for sure. Some of the folks who helped pen this atrocity are known anti-LGBT activists. So, yeah, there's an outcry. And because of the perceived hate, Indiana is going to be about as popular as a vegetarian at a Southern barbecue.


+11 more 
posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

I'm normally pretty liberal but I'm annoyed with liberals not seeing the nuance in this one. Suppose a Muslim woman has a small cleaning business. A potential client owns a Wiccan establishment. She says she'll hire the Muslim woman, but she needs to not cover her hair and everything, to celebrate the spirit of the Goddess. Should the Muslim woman be compelled to uncover herself in violation of her faith, or does she have the right to not take that contract because it goes against her faith?

If you prefer, switch the faiths, a Wiccan cleaning woman who is told she needs to cover her hair and defer to men at a place, which is against her female empowerment faith. Should she be compelled by the government to take the job just because she has a business? No.

Generally, people should not be compelled into business acts that are against their values. Like it or not, that can mean refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding if you don't believe in gay marriage. It doesn't become discriminatory until its not about the act, but who the customer is. e.g. refusing to sell a pre-made cake to a customer because he/she is gay or another race.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Just how do these business owners determine who is gay, bi, trans, have open marriages, etc.?

Scenario: If the business owner finds out that my husband and I prefer an open marriage, and that it goes against his/her religion, will they not serve me either? Does anyone really think that I should tolerate that discrimination?

Jesus' saying 26: "You see the sliver in your brother's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your brother's eye."
edit on 31-3-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I've said it before...

If Jesus himself had a business, he wouldn't care if someone was black, brown, green, gay, transsexual or an alien from the planet Zed.

I thought being a Christian is to be "Christ-like"?



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I think really what we are talking about is do the rights of society supersede the rights of the individual and in my opinion we should always ere on the rights of the individual. I despise Government in most of its forms and frankly I can do without society as well. While I don't personally feel the need to decline service to anyone I do support another persons individual choices over the right of society to inflict its 'tolerance' on said person.

You may say that because a person gets a business license and sells to the community that he is agreeing to serve all people per societal norms. I will argue that since the business license is required by society for someone to exercise their God-given right to earn a living it does NOT serve as tacit agreement or bind said individual to operate by societies rules.

Look, I realize this can be argued every which way till Sunday, but the bottom line for me is I ALWAYS choose the rights of an individual over the homogeneous BS of society. People have a right to participate in society in a voluntary way to the extent they feel comfortable.

THAT is my opinion and I am sticking to it...you and your 'society' and 'Government' can get stuffed. I participate because I am forced to not because I want to have anything to do with you.
edit on 2015/3/31 by Metallicus because: Fixed Spelling Error



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tridentblue

If they want to take the religous stand about this then they better do it for all things their religion says people can't do.

Not just pick one.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

No one ever said there was a business doing this. I doubt there would be many since it's a terrible business move. But if they wanted to refuse service, they are free to do so. That's all it's saying. It's not like all businesses in Indiana have suddenly banned gay people.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Well, I don't think anyone is stopping you from loading up on supplies and venturing out into the wild to live "free" from society. We all still have that right. There are places on the planet you can go where you'll never run into another human being ever again, and you will be free to do whatever you want, whenever you want. No one is forced to be a member of society.

EDIT: I could think of a few rivers in the Amazon that if you traveled up, you'd never be bothered by another soul.
edit on 31-3-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: tridentblue

If they want to take the religous stand about this then they better do it for all things their religion says people can't do.

Not just pick one.



Religious people don't always hold the same beliefs between sects and denominations. Catholics have many differences from Protestants and each Protestant sect has differences as well. STOP telling religious people how they have to believe and behave because it annoys you. You annoy me and I still don't tell you what to believe, but to just leave people the hell alone. Would you want some religious nut telling you how to believe? Now you know how they feel.
edit on 2015/3/31 by Metallicus because: sp



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Metallicus

Well, I don't think anyone is stopping you from loading up on supplies and venturing out into the wild to live "free" from society. We all still have that right. There are places on the planet you can go where you'll never run into another human being ever again, and you will be free to do whatever you want, whenever you want. No one is forced to be a member of society.

EDIT: I could think of a few rivers in the Amazon that if you traveled up, you'd never be bothered by another soul.


Actually I am saying people have a right to live right where they own property now without your interference. I am sick of people forcing their lifestyles on me just because we live in proximity. Leave ME and other people alone and I will do the same for you. It doesn't get more fair.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ItCameFromOuterSpace




It's not like all businesses in Indiana have suddenly banned gay people.


But, under this law, the way it's currently written, it IS legal to ban gay people from ANY business.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Respect is missing.

Respect for the gay community, respect for the christian community, respect for any and every community.

Respect for an individuals beliefs, tenets.

It's just gone.

And laws, any laws, that attempt to enforce respect will fail simply because respect is an aspect of moral values. And you cannot legislate morality.

Society is lacking in respect. In every niche, there seems to be a glaring lack of it.

A damned shame.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
a reply to: InTheLight

No one ever said there was a business doing this. I doubt there would be many since it's a terrible business move. But if they wanted to refuse service, they are free to do so. That's all it's saying. It's not like all businesses in Indiana have suddenly banned gay people.



Doesn't this open up a can of worms, because a business owner could deny someone service just by their appearance and/or behaviour, in that, they may act effeminate for a man, or masculine for a woman, and therefore be perceived as not heterosexual?



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ItCameFromOuterSpace




It's not like all businesses in Indiana have suddenly banned gay people.


But, under this law, the way it's currently written, it IS legal to ban gay people from ANY business.



How would someone know someone is gay unless they told them? No one can be banned for being gay since you can't tell a gay person by looking at them. It isn't like they have some sort of gay tattoo or something. It is a lot different than being born black or white or something with characteristics that can be identified.

I wouldn't know a gay person from a straight person unless it was made to be an issue and then it becomes a question of motivation.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

That's easy to say if you live in a city, but if you live in a town and that store is the only game in town to buy whatever it is you need, you don't get a choice on boycott.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I am not telling them what to believe, there is a big book always gets referenced to that tells them.

So if they want to say since the bible says this that I can't do it then it should not be cherry picked.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




Respect for the gay community, respect for the christian community, respect for any and every community.


Here ya go!




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

No...you find another place to eat. And then, eventually, the intollerance of the establishment will become well-enough known in the community that, if it's a tolerant community, the establishment will eventually close its doors because it has lost too much business for being judgmental jackasses.

Why would you want to patronize a place like that, anyhow?

Like it or not, your insistence on someone being tolerant and laws mandating tolerance will not change the heart of anybody if their intolerance is deeply seeded. And I must say that in today's society, if someone is still that intollerant, their bitterness and beliefs are deeply seeded.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join