XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 9/25/2018 5:58 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On 9/25/2018 1:48 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >> On 9/19/2018 2:36 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>> On 9/19/2018 12:03 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> {snip}   
   >>>   
   >>>> If they (the "Liberals and gay activists") demand tolerance of their   
   >>>> viewpoints and behaviors, then they are under the same obligation to   
   >>>> be tolerant of others viewpoints and behavior, which means that they   
   >>>> can not call for boycotting of the baker or other tactics designed   
   >>>> to interfere with the baker's business.   
   >>>   
   >>> Not tolerating a person because they belong to a certain class of   
   >>> people (what the baker is doing) is far different than not tolerating   
   >>> behavior (what the boycotters are doing).   
   >>   
   >> Both are manifestations of intolerance.   
   >   
   > Yes.  One is a good form of intolerance, the other isn't.   
      
   LOL!  Good form of intolerance?!  I've never heard such a moronic   
   statement in my life.   
      
   You just justified intolerance.   
      
   What a joke.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)