The Paradox of Tolerance

Check your meds!

 

When you criticize lefties for being intolerant you may have some credibility. Until then you should just not worry about it.

 

Federal law guarantees minimum wage for waitresses/waiters. If they do not get tipped enough to cover that minimum wage then the employer must make up for it. I guarantee you that those waitresses in Ohio are making that from the employer at the very least (in ohio minimum wage is $10.10/hr). Also, regardless of tips made the employer must pay at least half of minimum wage. And no, it is not legal, per federal law, for the employer to withhold tips from employees. They CAN make waitresses/waiters refuse tips from customers, but if they do get tipped, the employer has to give it to them. If they don't then they can be held legally liable.

 

Who gets to define what is intolerant and what isn't? I will volunteer for the job and I bet the OP changes their tune.

 

Common sense would be not talking to people any way you want just because the 1st amendment says so.

 

Not ONE film not ONE book have been banned from schools because they feature a heterosexual marriage or a heterosexual character, not ONE book depicting a heterosexual marriage...

See? This is what I mean when I say that attempting a serious debate against such disingenuous arguments excuses is a waste of time.

Get over it. The law is "Don't say gay". NOT "Don't say straight"

 

I don't know what "parents who are caring means", but any parent who doesn't want their child to go to school with homosexual children should NOT put their child in a public school. They contaminate the minds of children who are being raised to be tolerant of the rights of EVERYONE.

 

I have always been in favor of religion being taught in public schools. But it has to be ALL religions equally and objectively... including mine: Atheism.

 

I wish our students were so far ahead on the important subjects that we had time for this. Students may not be able to read at grade level, but look at the bright side; they know about men in dresses!

 

So you don't think religion is an important subject. Than why did you bring it... Never mind! My bad for taking you seriously even once.

 

Since you couldn't address what I actually said, you hade to invent a position for me so you could reply. Lets be more specific:

A teacher believes that gay people are an abomination and will burn for eternity. Are we still on board with allowing that teacher to use their influence on their young, captive audience to push this belief?

 

True, but common sense might also indicate the fact that I don't choose your emotions for you. If you take offense it is because you chose to take offense, not because somebody else made you do it.

You cannot legitimately escalate to physical force for coercion or even fraud. Why should you be able to use force against speech?

 

There is a saying out there, “don’t start no sht, won’t be no sht.” I think that’s a sound philosophy to avoid those kinds of problems.

 

It's almost comforting to know I can control your behavior if I just push the right buttons, like any kind of machine.

 

Then watch your mouth around other people and you'll avoid that problem. Regular people already know this.

 

Draw a line based upon harm to others, and punish them if they cross it. Free speech is not harm to others, to be clear. Bribes and calls for violence do not count as free speech.

Where is the line between acceptance and tolerance?

 

Tolerance is basically "live and let live". The line is crossed when people are forced to support the alphabet agenda.

 

The law is:

CS/CS/HB 1557 (2022) - Parental Rights in Education

The word gay isn't even in the text of the law.

Is there some specific passage in this law that you find to be intolerant?

 

Tolerance is only that I not shoot you on sight. It does not mean I have to like you or associate with you. That will never be good enough for leftist who insist that the whole world must follow them off of whatever precipice they stand upon at the moment.

 

The second part is kind of vague. Letting people use the bathroom of their choice if they do not harm others seems to epitomize "live and let live" and yet the right is opposed to it. Back when the issue was gays, it's hard to imagine letting two consenting adults enter into a contract as anything except live and let live. So what are specific examples of forced acceptance?

 

That's when you start forcing your agenda on others and disrespect the privacy and safety of others.

 

Funny how you are always the last one to come into discussions that were already settled.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ox-of-tolerance.611025/page-2#post-1074254581

 

You have a strange sense of humor.

Sexual orientation != gay.

Nor does the law prohibit saying the words sexual orientation.

Nor do any of your opponents in the thread concede to your claim.

So your label of the law is certainly not "settled."

Which brings us back to the question. Which passage in real law, and not the law you imagined, do you find to be intolerant?

 

It does exactly that.

Please don't confuse me for somebody who wastes more time than necessary on dumb excuses. I already did my part here
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/desantis-authoritarian-dont-say-gay-ban.598611/

"Don't say gay" is a 100% accurate characterization of the homophobic bill. So you can move on and participate in the topic of this debate, or you can go ahead in THAT thread with the part where the right-winger slanders teachers and calls them "pedophiles" for no reason, which is what usually follows when they run out of arguments. I'm not really interested.

 

It exactly says:

Which does not do what you claim.

I'm not confused. You are perfectly happy to waste time on statements you should know to be false.