On the Threshold of Bigotry

Respectfully submitted on behalf of those who ask: When do minority opinions become so correct and true that those who hold them can call those who don’t “bigots”?A case in point:Pharmacist Phil is a born-again Christian and he bitterly opposes abortion in any form, including Plan B”the morning-after pill. So, Pharmacist Phil decides not to stock Plan B, thusly denying women access to all legal birth-control measures. Is Pharmacist Phil right or wrong? Is he a bigot or an anti-bigot?It all depends on your predisposed opinion of legalized abortion.Lawyer Larry is a natural-born homosexual and he strongly advocates gay rights. So, Lawyer Larry uses his professional skills to promote the legalization of gay marriage, even though it would compromise, in the collective mind of the majority, the true meaning of the term “marriage.” Is Lawyer Larry right or wrong? Is he a bigot or an anti-bigot?It all depends on your predisposed opinion of legalized gay marriage.Here is a case where two groups that oppose each other do exactly what they accuse each other of doing. And in the course of such disputes someone calls another a "bigot." But just where is that threshold of bigotry? And who decides its proper location and orientation?”HM

I'd say the threshold of bigotry is a measure of the disparity between two opposing POVs. The threshold comes when one holder of a POV becomes irrationally intolerant of the other's POV. But in the end it's all about opinion, not about the relevant and historical facts in the case. I must agree, but I am unsure as to which side of either argument holds the bigoted POV. I'd say he was a Christian bigot for forcing his POV on his customers. Your threshold of bigotry is predicated on a belief that there is some other version of "marriage" besides the heterosexual kind. Such a belief begs an accurate definition of "marriage." If I define it as a civil union between a man and a woman, and if another defines it as a civil union between same sexes as well as opposite sexes, one of us is going to be called a bigot.Whatever the threshold of bigotry is, if there is one, it is a threhold on a landscape of opinionation.”HM

In that case the threshold of bigotry is predicated on the belief that the term "marriage" should apply to civil unions beyond the heterosexual kind. Who decides what is "excluded on irrational grounds"? Who puts the coordinates on the bigotry landscape? If a person opposes polygamy is he a bigot, too?Is it bigoted to ask: Why can't gays be happy with a DP (domestic partnership) status if it does everything legal for them that a civil union does for married heterosexuals? (I've been accused of bigotry for asking such a question.)My new definition of a bigot: Anyone who is so indisposed by his or her beliefs that he or she must invoke the term "bigot" against holders of an adversarial opinion.”HM

None, if you prefer anarchy.”HM

Pharmacist Phil has the power to deny a woman her legal access to prescribed birth-control medication. Phil should be in the business of filling prescriptions without prejudice toward those who oppose his POV. Phil, by my estimation, is doing exactly what gay-marriage advocates are doing: proselytizing an agenda with the accusation that anyone who opposes it is a bigot.”HM

At street level, at least, the highlighted part is always the case. This suggests to me that the game of bigotry is played out only on a provincial landscape amongst pedestrian players who are the intellectual equivalents of homeless people.”HM

I'm just trying to locate the landscape whereupon bigotry is played out. When special groups impose their agendas on the public-at-large are they treading on a bigotry landscape? I've never heard so much sputtering accusations of bigotry as that which comes from the foaming mouths of gay-marriage advocates. But even they are less vicious than those who would deprive a woman of her rightful access to heath care. I'd say Pharmacist Phil is as much a bigot for denying a woman access to Plan B as Hitler was for denying the Jews access to any health care all.”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

Could it be because I have a superior POV? Your mum is probably too old for Plan B, so Pharmacist Phil is no real threat her. But don't take her up to Capitol Hill in Seattle unless she wants to watch unmarried gay men stick their tongues down each other's throat. Might make her gag, if not drop an egg over that.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

Mr. Straggler, I'm sorry to have to tell you that all forms of government except anarchy impose their ideologies on the people they rule.
”HM

This old horse is going to die from being brought out of the barn and whipped too often. And some snoopy admin will probably get his pink panties in a bundle if I say once again that there is a not a drop of nourishing intelligence in the question: "[S]hould homosexual couples be denied the same legal rights as heterosexual couples?" The simple fact here is that they ARE NOT denied anything that heterosexuals are denied. Do you feel that being denied a polygamous marriage is an affront to your liberty? Then this leaves your definition awash in subjectivity. I'm looking for more of a mechanical one that can be viewed objectively.”HM

Straggler, the main problem I have with this is that you're omitting the fact that what is "rational, reasoned and pragmatic" is too often subjective beyond repair and in the end must pay homage to some prevailing ideology.Where do you objectively draw the line? How do you decide on issues of such things as gay marriage rights or born-again pharmacist's rights to deny medication? You have to reach into that greasy barrel of opinions and sort it out. In the end somebody wins and somebody loses. Because in the end the law discriminates all over the place. Somebody's ideology is going to be favored and another's will be spurned. That's life. Tough titty.Some people feel disadvantaged and discriminated against for doing nothing more than forcing pit bulls to fight to death. Hey, it's a popular and profitable sport! Who's to say they're wrong? Maybe we need a special law to protect their interests, too. And maybe the mere suggestion of this, if juxtaposed with gay marriage or prejudicial pharmacy, is enough to cause of a blow to be struck on the playing field of bigotry.”HM

Then I say: FREE MICHAEL VICK! He is in prison for doing "action X" that "can be demonstrated to have no personal effect on you or anyone else who does not wish it to do so."”HM

I agree. I have to pay property taxes on my home, but the church down the street gets all its municipal services for free. Now that's subjective regulation for you!”HM

No. The subject at hand is about how bigotry is measured, and upon what common landscape this measurement can be accomplished. You, or at least your cohorts of the argument, have already asserted that gay marriage should be treated just like regular marriage, and anyone who disagrees is a bigot. This is why I am suspicious that Lawyer Larry is the the business of fulminating bigotry. And I want to know what landscape he is standing on.Tentative Rule #1: You can measure bigotry in the noise made by those who accuse others of it.”HM

Don't know why this is so difficult for some people to grasp. Could that difficulty be a measure of bigotry?”HM