In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[TemplarKormac]

It is a free speech issue.

But when he quotes the bible as his guide for his feelings about gays, he introduces the teachings, right? He's the one citing the bible as his spiritaul guide to make him think the way he thinks. I didn't bring it up. What I did bring up is that there are parts of the same text that are ignored out of convenience sake Of course, as I have demonstrated, part-time Christians seem to be the norm and in terms of politics, it's only that part of the bible that is in line with GOP supersition that seems to be harped upon. That you think this is just fine...well, that's between you and whom you worship I suppose.

However, you can't cite part of the work and think it elevates your stance/reinforces your positition when you ignore parts of the rest of the work as being totally out of step with 2013/2014 civilized society. Otherwise, those who oppose his viewpoints, can do the same thing, right?

One thing you missed:

How does his quoting the Bible affect you? How does doing such imply action or ill will? Hmm? "Civilized" is a relative term to you. "Civilized" only happens to be those that hold the same opinion as yours. Actually, the word you're looking for is "narcissism." Even the homosexuals who watch the show disagree, they don't care about what Phil Robertson thinks, they care about the show!

Why can't you do that, candycorn?

Never said it did. I think he had the right to say (and has the right still) whatever comes into his mind. And GLAAD has the right to organize any sort of response they deem appropriate outside of doing physical harm to him or anyone else.

You see sonny, I'm commenting on a thread written by a dingbat who thinks GLAAD had no such standing only because she agrees with what this guy from DD said. Now that there have been moves to counter-boycott, you'll notice Foxy (TTBOMK anyway) has not lambasted those who did the same thing GLAAD did.

As for "homosexuals who watch the show"...oh yeah as if you talked to everyone of them. When their lifestyle is compared to Beastiality, I would think that there were more than just a few who thought otherwise. Dunno for sure but the law of big numbers seems to indicate that there would be some. Your generalization is an earmark of your lazy research and weak mind.

Hey, dingbat, you're making her point. Namecalling, ad hominem, whatever it is. You tell her that her opinion sucks without proving why it sucks. You misquote PR to make it seem like Fox is out of her mind. Really? Identity politics is for cowards, candycorn.

I am far from weak minded. I'm not the one launching a smear campaign. One thing that should be outlawed is for someone to purposefully degrade, defame or bring down another person for their own sakes. Oh wait, it is. We call that tort law, my friend.

 

[TemplarKormac]

According to Foxy, nobody should do anything beyond having an opinion... She said that if you go beyond that, you're "pure evil" as if there was such a thing. Mike Huckabee (public figure hardly just another guy) said he'd boycott and made it a matter of religion Huckabee to boycott Cracker Barrel over Duck Dynasty | The Daily Caller!

So Huckabee must be pure evil now... If Foxy wants to deem people as evil for such benign actions, just have it apply to both sides of the argument. That's all I'm saying.

Once again your black and white thinking strikes again.

She's deeming the act evil, not the people themselves. Hate the sin, love the sinner perhaps?

To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil.

Notice the words "should be a crime" do not exist within that statement.

 

[The T]

Yes because it says simply that there is no wrong or right. That everything should be accepted in order to be tolerant.

If someone expresses intolerant views whats the proper response? (this is also PC as hell)

Because if someone calls me a fag, I'm going to have something to say about it. When I do am I now the "wrong" party for not accepting the fag label?

Yes according to this logic.

I'm very intolerant of Child Molesters. Do I have to pretend they deserve breath or else be labeled as intolerant? Should I support them instead according to this new double think logic?

The emboldened is all you needed to impart. I could have done without the rest. Brevity is the soul of wit. *I* for one don't need pictures to read. OK?

Umm ok? Do you Agree or Disagree?

About what? Your grey area(s)? Right is right, wrong is wrong. All depends on how you were brought up...is the course of liberty too strong to be understood?

 

[bendog]

According to Foxy, nobody should do anything beyond having an opinion... She said that if you go beyond that, you're "pure evil" as if there was such a thing. Mike Huckabee (public figure hardly just another guy) said he'd boycott and made it a matter of religion Huckabee to boycott Cracker Barrel over Duck Dynasty | The Daily Caller!

So Huckabee must be pure evil now... If Foxy wants to deem people as evil for such benign actions, just have it apply to both sides of the argument. That's all I'm saying.

Once again your black and white thinking strikes again.

She's deeming the act evil, not the people themselves. Hate the sin, love the sinner perhaps?

To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil.

I'm not calling you weak minded, but Phil is a public figure, so any slander defamation claim by him requires that any statement made about him have been false, as well have been said/published with either the knowledge it was false or a reckless disregard for finding out whether or not it was false.

If the OP is that there can be some "prior restraint" on GLAAD or anyone to voice an opinion, and suggest a course of action involving how one spends his/her own money, then such a view would be at odds with the constitution (BOR), as well as the basic notions of freedom that fueled the Founders.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

There is a line when crossed which cries out to be confronted. I have no disrespect for those who are offended by the life-style of homosexuals (gays and lesbians). I do disrespect those who supported Prop. 8 and vote to deny an entire set of people a civil right, and people like Warrior whose intolerance has morphed into hate for an entire set of citizens - he and they need to be called out for the evil they express and shouted down.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

[
You're wrong of course. Most people side with the right of Duck Dynasty to express opinions without fear of censorship or other repercussions. This includes democrats and gays. John Stewart, Andrew Sullivan,etc.
You don't understand that this is a free speech issue and not a religious issue. Your own intolerance of free speech limits your ability to argue on the topic at hand. Your authoritarian views wont allow it.
]

That's a kneeslapper coming from you, given that you made this post one month ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8165967-post105.html

A post touting the conservative organization TruthRevolt, which is a group dedicated to doing whatever they can to harm liberals in broadcasting.

Your post cites their petition to get Martin Bashir off the air, gee, wasn't Bashir exercising what you call his free speech rights?

Wasn't he doing what you believe he should be able to do without 'repercussions'?

You see people, there is no conservative in this thread who isn't a hypocritical phoney. Their posts are here to prove it.

I can see you haven't read all of the posts on this thread since we've already had this discussion. As I said earlier, if Phil Robertson had implied that people should defecate in homosexual's mouths then I would be on the side of GLAAD. I draw the line at any suggestion of violence. I have already posted this view earlier. Please try to temper your knee jerk reactionary hyper partisanship with the patience it takes to read a few posts. Thank you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not to worry guys. I long ago made a pledge to myself to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage myself in exercises of futility.

Several have failed to grasp the context of the thread topic. Perhaps this is on purpose. Perhaps they simply are not capable of grasping a subject that complex. Who knows?

But, they do give the rest of us an excellent opportunity to point out the intolerance they seem to embrace and keep restating the principles of what true tolerance is. I imagine we've been able to persuade a few folks to think about it in a more constructive way--at least think about it. Who knows? Maybe we will start a whole new common sense trend?

I also believe that if I am not able to defend my own beliefs and convictions, that they aren't much worth having are they. So I never mind anybody who challenges my point of view. So long as they challenge what I say and not what they want me to have said. And as long as they stay on topic and not what they want the topic to be.

Why do you only condemn liberal intolerance in this thread? Do you really think you're bias isn't transparent?

What's wrong with your eyes that you have been blind to my now several quotes saying ANYBODY, right or left, who does what GLAAD did is wrong and intolerant to the point of being evil?

 

[The T]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

There is a line when crossed which cries out to be confronted. I have no disrespect for those who are offended by the life-style of homosexuals (gays and lesbians). I do disrespect those who supported Prop. 8 and vote to deny an entire set of people a civil right, and people like Warrior whose intolerance has morphed into hate for an entire set of citizens - he and they need to be called out for the evil they express and shouted down.

When did GAY become a race as to 'Civil rights'? And what rights did they not already have?

Apology to Foxy...O/T as is that of which I addressed.

 

[hunarcy]

Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?

Ben, if someone calls you a fag, first, ask yourself if it's true. If it's not, shake your head in pity and move on. If it IS true, move to San Francisco.

 

[The T]

Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?

Ben, if someone calls you a fag, first, ask yourself if it's true. If it's not, shake your head in pity and move on. If it IS true, move to San Francisco.

Plausible, sensible. Turn the other cheek.

 

[hunarcy]

So shut up until you have something intelligent and honest to say.

If you would limit yourself to intelligent and honest, you'd never post again.

FF was saying that when you threaten to go after a person's livelihood by trying to drive them completely out of public life, you go beyond reasonable rebuke. That's what GLAAD was doing and that's what is different from all the examples you offered.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do they not have a right to organize a boycott, carbine? They have the right to boycott whomever the hell they want to!

Even here I have a problem TK. In my view of fair play, I think it is morally wrong to organize a boycott purely because you don't like what somebody says they believe. For instance I think a boycott of Chic-fil-a purely because their CEO supports traditional marriage is evil. He hurts no one in no way by stating his belief.

If he was refusing to hire or serve people who disagreed with him and/or who represented a group he didn't like purely because of what they believe, then I could see justification for a boycott. That would be a bad act that goes beyond simply being who and what we are.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

Fair play involves letting either side boycott. Boycotts aren't boycotts when they turn into blatant acts of militarism, such as what GLAAD has done. Boycotts are passive acts of expression. They do no harm other than to prove a point. Boycotting in no way affects an opinion if that opinion is firmly held, Fox. Meaning no harm is being done to the entity in question. However, if that opinion is not firmly held, that's where boycotts get sketchy. If you boycott someone with a weakly held opinion, you are thereby taking advantage of them and their weakness.

By law you are allowed to boycott. According to the Constitution, it is an assertion of free speech. Just so you know, boycotts can have the unintended consequence of helping the person/place/thing being boycotted, as with Chick-fil-A's case. People wanting to boycott Phil Robertson's show had the unintended effect of helping his business instead.

But I am not focused on the 'law' here. Yes, I do think there should be a law prohibiting the intentional physical or material harm to another person or entity due to an expressed opinion that somebody didn't like. I think that is a violation of our unalienable right to be who and what we are so long as we do not tread on somebody's elses rights.

The fact that something is legal does not necessarily make it right, ethical, or honorable.

Back in the 70's the Nestle Corporation was using a very unethical marketing stragy pushing their infant formula in developing countries. Those of us who saw that as a bad ACT--not a wrong opinion but a bad ACT--did boycott everything we could find associated with the Nestle Corporation. I'm sure there was a financial pinch in all that and nobody likes to be constantly portrayed as a villain, and in time Nestle stopped that unethical practice. And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That in my view is an ethical and honorable reason to boycott somebody.

But let's say that the CEO of Nestle, in an interview with some magazine, said he believed the Bible condemned Democrats or condemned Republicans.

That is an opinion. It has no power to hurt any Democrat or any Republican. It singles nobody out for defamation. Would we be within our right to make a public statement saying we believed that CEO was wrong about that? Of course we are and it would be ethical to do so. Would we be within our right to take our business elsewhee? Yes, that is our right too and ethical to say so.

Is it within our right to organize a boycott of Nestle to physically or materially punish that CEO purely for expressing his opinion? It is a legal right, yes. But an ethical right no. That would be evil.

 

[hunarcy]

What about the Dixie Chics?

As I remember it, no one demanded they be fired. People just stopped buying their music and stopped attending their concerts.

They were dropped from their sponsor.
What was done to them is probably ten times worse than what will happen to Phil. I guess the right didn't like them having an opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was the sponsor's choice. Just as it was A&E's choice to suspend PR. I've not criticized that.

The main thing that happened was that people stopped buying their music and attending their concerts. Perhaps that's why the sponsor dropped them. Perhaps not. I don't know.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Well, hold on a sec. Nobody should take one person's rants and attribute them to the entire group in my view. I know that we do that here all the time but it's something I wish we didn't do. So I don't think you can look at this guy and say, "well, you see, Intolernance."

To your point however, I don't think it is a coincidence that almost down to the last woman/man that the debate about this guy from DD breaks along political party lines. Which is why I call bullshit on the supposed theme of this thread and dub it just a thinly disguised attempt to cloak bigotry in some sort of moral cloth; and not a particularly effective attempt at that. If there was any true ambiguity about the man and his actions; you'd get a mix of people who support and a mix of people who think A&E was right for what they did.

Me, I fully support his right to say (and whomever is reading this as well) whatever they want as long as they recognize that there may be consequences.

That the group that supports constantly invokes the Bible is hilarious since we've proven that ONLY those parts of the bible that align with GOP superstition concerning women and homosexuals are what is taken; the rest may as well be flushed down the toilet it seems. You can't accept some parts of the Bible and just ignore other parts and still use the Holy text as any sort of authority.

You're wrong of course. Most people side with the right of Duck Dynasty to express opinions without fear of censorship or other repercussions. This includes democrats and gays. John Stewart, Andrew Sullivan,etc.
You don't understand that this is a free speech issue and not a religious issue. Your own intolerance of free speech limits your ability to argue on the topic at hand. Your authoritarian views wont allow it.
Gay CNN Anchor Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star - Video

It is a free speech issue.

But when he quotes the bible as his guide for his feelings about gays, he introduces the teachings, right? He's the one citing the bible as his spiritaul guide to make him think the way he thinks. I didn't bring it up. What I did bring up is that there are parts of the same text that are ignored out of convenience sake Of course, as I have demonstrated, part-time Christians seem to be the norm and in terms of politics, it's only that part of the bible that is in line with GOP supersition that seems to be harped upon. That you think this is just fine...well, that's between you and whom you worship I suppose.

However, you can't cite part of the work and think it elevates your stance/reinforces your positition when you ignore parts of the rest of the work as being totally out of step with 2013/2014 civilized society. Otherwise, those who oppose his viewpoints, can do the same thing, right?

I don't give a damn who's a part time Christian or not. I don't care if Phil Robertson is a part time Muslim. I'm an atheist and I think Phil Robertson has every right to express his religious faith as long as he's not advocating violence. As an atheist, I disagree with everything Robertson said. I will however defend his right to express his religious views without intimidation. We can not ONLY defend speech we agree with or we become intolerant ourselves.

 

[Montrovant]

Do they not have a right to organize a boycott, carbine? They have the right to boycott whomever the hell they want to!

So an action that threatens or coerces, via an effort to do material to an organization and individuals affiliated with that organization

is OKAY,

but only if it's conservatives doing the coercing?

That sounds a bit partisan hackish to me.

It doesn't matter who does it!

Anyone who attempts to harm someone financially because of their opinion can be seen as an act of extortion. However, a boycott is different. It is a form of free expression, of association. The viewers themselves have no direct financial or material impact on A&E, other than their viewership.

You're losing this debate badly, Carbine.

Is a boycott never an attempt to harm someone financially?

Is it perfectly reasonable to harm someone financially as long as it's done indirectly?

Viewers may not have a direct financial impact, but their indirect impact can be substantial. That is generally the point behind a boycott, isn't it? To try and get a person/company to change based on financial impact, be it a direct one (people stop buying a product) or indirect (loss of viewership causes sponsors to leave)?

 

[Foxfyre]

"Don't become so tolerant you tolerate intolerance." - Bill Maher

I got a better one. Don't become so tolerant you tolerate the injustice of minority bullies.

To the point that they legislate intolerance out of existence...due to their intolerance. SEE where this will head? Absence of liberty.

That is the very heart of why this particular issue is so important. If one group can physically and materially hurt somebody purely because it doesn't like what that somebody said, then there are no unalienable rights. We have dissolved into anarchy in which the best financed and most politcially powerful can deny anybody the right to express his/her opinion about anything.

It is a dangerous thing if an organization like GLAAD or any other group, left or right, can dictate to people what they are or are not allowed to think, speak, believe, or express. It means that anybody they dissaprove of has no liberties at all.

 

[hunarcy]

candycorn and Bfgrn just strike me as flaming trolls and I don't even bother to read them anymore. carbine is just a partisan hack trying to defend the Left for being intolerant and is frustrated that no one will agree with him just because he said something he thought to be clever. I don't know BD or the "others".

 

[TemplarKormac]

Even here I have a problem TK. In my view of fair play, I think it is morally wrong to organize a boycott purely because you don't like what somebody says they believe. For instance I think a boycott of Chic-fil-a purely because their CEO supports traditional marriage is evil. He hurts no one in no way by stating his belief.

If he was refusing to hire or serve people who disagreed with him and/or who represented a group he didn't like purely because of what they believe, then I could see justification for a boycott. That would be a bad act that goes beyond simply being who and what we are.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

Fair play involves letting either side boycott. Boycotts aren't boycotts when they turn into blatant acts of militarism, such as what GLAAD has done. Boycotts are passive acts of expression. They do no harm other than to prove a point. Boycotting in no way affects an opinion if that opinion is firmly held, Fox. Meaning no harm is being done to the entity in question. However, if that opinion is not firmly held, that's where boycotts get sketchy. If you boycott someone with a weakly held opinion, you are thereby taking advantage of them and their weakness.

By law you are allowed to boycott. According to the Constitution, it is an assertion of free speech. Just so you know, boycotts can have the unintended consequence of helping the person/place/thing being boycotted, as with Chick-fil-A's case. People wanting to boycott Phil Robertson's show had the unintended effect of helping his business instead.

But I am not focused on the 'law' here. Yes, I do think there should be a law prohibiting the intentional physical or material harm to another person or entity due to an expressed opinion that somebody didn't like. I think that is a violation of our unalienable right to be who and what we are so long as we do not tread on somebody's elses rights.

The fact that something is legal does not necessarily make it right, ethical, or honorable.

Back in the 70's the Nestle Corporation was using a very unethical marketing stragy pushing their infant formula in developing countries. Those of us who saw that as a bad ACT--not a wrong opinion but a bad ACT--did boycott everything we could find associated with the Nestle Corporation. I'm sure there was a financial pinch in all that and nobody likes to be constantly portrayed as a villain, and in time Nestle stopped that unethical practice. And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That in my view is an ethical and honorable reason to boycott somebody.

But let's say that the CEO of Nestle, in an interview with some magazine, said he believed the Bible condemned Democrats or condemned Republicans.

That is an opinion. It has no power to hurt any Democrat or any Republican. It singles nobody out for defamation. Would we be within our right to make a public statement saying we believed that CEO was wrong about that? Of course we are and it would be ethical to do so. Would we be within our right to take our business elsewhere? Yes, that is our right too and ethical to say so.

Is it within our right to organize a boycott of Nestle to physically or materially punish that CEO purely for expressing his opinion? It is a legal right, yes. But an ethical right no. That would be evil.

Perfect!

This is what NYCarbineer can't recognize. There's a difference simply between having an opinion that hurts nobody, and acting on an opinion that hurts somebody. It is indeed unethical to harm someone for an opinion, as it has been stated hundreds of times before here. It hurts nobody at all. I agree, wholeheartedly. Phil Robertson didn't do anything to hurt anyone, but as GLAAD saw it, he attacked them. They responded by getting A&E to suspend him.

 

[The T]

Wry? You address the WRONG problem...and thus the premise of the thread. Think speech...think intolerance...and being intolerant of intolerance. FORGET the reasons for it for a moment and project yourself into a situation as Mr. Robertson is in and YOUR deeply held beliefs you gave in some other interview apart FROM your employer(s)...and YOU were where he is...regardless of subject matter, and some group that LOATHED your stance was Hell Bent on getting you canned for your beliefs...regardless of what they are.

Would YOU feel violated for speaking your mind even if you stated YOU loved them none the less and YOU respected them but what they were doing was WRONG in your view? YOU got canned because your employer sided with what you know to be wrong according to YOUR beliefs?

Convoluted?

YOU BET. Simple. Mr. Robertson stated what he believed. He hurt NO one, took nothing away from anyone. Just spoke his mind. It ruffled the feathers of a few...so what? LIFE is full of these instances.

Would it be grand if this board banned people on their beliefs because they differed from yours? Just because?

Impediment to YOUR liberty? Are words that? Are beliefs? Did YOU take anything (but butthurt), from those that got you canned?

NO.

 

[bendog]

Even here I have a problem TK. In my view of fair play, I think it is morally wrong to organize a boycott purely because you don't like what somebody says they believe. For instance I think a boycott of Chic-fil-a purely because their CEO supports traditional marriage is evil. He hurts no one in no way by stating his belief.

If he was refusing to hire or serve people who disagreed with him and/or who represented a group he didn't like purely because of what they believe, then I could see justification for a boycott. That would be a bad act that goes beyond simply being who and what we are.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

Fair play involves letting either side boycott. Boycotts aren't boycotts when they turn into blatant acts of militarism, such as what GLAAD has done. Boycotts are passive acts of expression. They do no harm other than to prove a point. Boycotting in no way affects an opinion if that opinion is firmly held, Fox. Meaning no harm is being done to the entity in question. However, if that opinion is not firmly held, that's where boycotts get sketchy. If you boycott someone with a weakly held opinion, you are thereby taking advantage of them and their weakness.

By law you are allowed to boycott. According to the Constitution, it is an assertion of free speech. Just so you know, boycotts can have the unintended consequence of helping the person/place/thing being boycotted, as with Chick-fil-A's case. People wanting to boycott Phil Robertson's show had the unintended effect of helping his business instead.

But I am not focused on the 'law' here. Yes, I do think there should be a law prohibiting the intentional physical or material harm to another person or entity due to an expressed opinion that somebody didn't like. I think that is a violation of our unalienable right to be who and what we are so long as we do not tread on somebody's elses rights.

The fact that something is legal does not necessarily make it right, ethical, or honorable.

Back in the 70's the Nestle Corporation was using a very unethical marketing stragy pushing their infant formula in developing countries. Those of us who saw that as a bad ACT--not a wrong opinion but a bad ACT--did boycott everything we could find associated with the Nestle Corporation. I'm sure there was a financial pinch in all that and nobody likes to be constantly portrayed as a villain, and in time Nestle stopped that unethical practice. And we all started buying Nestle products again.

That in my view is an ethical and honorable reason to boycott somebody.

But let's say that the CEO of Nestle, in an interview with some magazine, said he believed the Bible condemned Democrats or condemned Republicans.

That is an opinion. It has no power to hurt any Democrat or any Republican. It singles nobody out for defamation. Would we be within our right to make a public statement saying we believed that CEO was wrong about that? Of course we are and it would be ethical to do so. Would we be within our right to take our business elsewhee? Yes, that is our right too and ethical to say so.

Is it within our right to organize a boycott of Nestle to physically or materially punish that CEO purely for expressing his opinion? It is a legal right, yes. But an ethical right no. That would be evil.

I agree that the vast majority of Americans would not approve of GLAAD seeking to financially harm Phil for expressing the views he did. I tried to say that he's showman. In a way he's like Tim Tebow. People like this may be polarizing, but for most of us, it's not whether you agree with the guy's politics, or religious views, but rather it's about his having a right to his veiws so long as he isn't trying to hurt anyone. I don't see any hate if these two guys. And, I suspect the vast majority would see it like I do.

I don't buy any DD stuff, and I do not watch the show (though I have a little). But, if GLAAD tries anything, I'll send A&E a email. I watch Hell on Wheels "religiously." This is actually a good illustration about how public debate is supposed to work in this country.