I don't see how denouncing pernicious, delusion-based bigotry is on par with denouncing an entire segment of the population based on their sexual preferences. The former seems reasonable and justified, the latter morally offensive and ignorant.
I wouldn't put too much money on that.
Maybe not, but its quite possible that if he had been more diplomatic about it the results wouldn't have been the same.
Because they believe it and are not only brave to express that believe, they want to express it.
That's fine, but then that's a choice of priorities you've made. If you strongly believe that, say, blacks are inferior to whites, so strongly that you're willing to risk your professional reputation by voicing that opinion, then you've made your choice and can hardly complain about the consequences. That's what children do. And Mr. Robertson's comments about homosexuality are in the same boat.
Views intolerant against their intolerance are no better.
How do you figure? Religious intolerance, homophobia, and bigotry are pernicious and dangerous, whereas intolerance of such attitudes appear to be constructive and positive, inasmuch as they seek to eliminate such attitudes. I mean, take a moment to think about what you're saying- intolerance of racism, sexism and homophobia is as bad as racism, sexism and homophobia? Seriously?
I've never said they didn't in fact I've mentioned that they did have the full right to disagree with his statements.
Then what's the fuss about?
People have the rights to do stupid, radical things.
And Mr. Robertson exercised that right, and is now feeling the consequences in the way that others exercise theirs, such as the execs at A&E. The suggestion that Mr. Robertson's
rights have been in any way violated is
laughable.
It just seems so ignorant how a lot of the times bigotry isn't frowned upon unless it is religious-based.
Examples?
