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

[hunarcy]

Actually, laws can be deemed "illegal", if they violate human rights.

It's how we are enabled to prosecute war criminals and the like who create bad law to facilitate human rights violations.

We don't go after them for the laws...we go after them for their actions. They don't, therefore, deem the laws illegal. They deem the actions (albeit allowed by the laws) as violations of human rights.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Since my post was quoted, I assumed it was directed toward me. (I have begun to try to not even read the Self Feeding Troll's words in other's quotes.) If I was mistaken because I didn't read it's quote, I apologize.

I did not quote your post, but the way you pounced so quickly, you proved my point for me.

Seems to me that both sides are overheating over Mr. Duck Ducky, here.

The dude can say what he wants, I don't care. If he reaps more rewards, then that's this thing. If he has to take lumps for it, then that is also his thing.

But all this bullshit about "intolerance! from the left, when lefties that are boycotting are doing exactly the same thing that FRC or One Million Moms do when they want to make a point, is just ridiculous.

Moving on....

"Pounced"? I merely asked what I said indicated hate. Further, I have REPEATEDLY said that everyone has the right to boycott whatever they want, and only object to "researching" people to put them on a blacklist. I don't support that on either side.

Yeah, you probably should be moving on...you don't really seem to understand what's going on.

Oh, I understand quite clearly. Just have no desire to waste my time on a dickwad who is not really interested in honest debate, anyway.

 

[WillReadmore]

The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on cases as presented to them. It is not their job to rule on law in general. So, it's not surprising that they only ruled on the specific questions in the cases as presented.

They DID give some hints, though. The comments from the majority on Loving v. Virginia were a good indication that the Supremes see a role in determining whether state marriage law is acceptable. And, there are several Article IV cases working through the courts right now - and it seems likely that one side or the other will keep pushing until the Surpremes make a decision.

Of course you are right about laws being unconstitutional (v. illegal). Thanks.

No worries, glad to help. I hope the Article IV issues are cleared up soon. Nothing worse than uncertainty.

Good point. My bet is that this is going to go a little like the interracial marriage thing went. We're in an intermediate time when there is something of a hodgpodge.

My state of WA, for example, has decided to marry same sex couples. As a result, we now dumped our civil union laws - in fact, we converted those with civil unions to being married. I don't know what we do about those with civil unions from other states - they aren't "married" and we have no civil union law anymore. They can convert those to marriages if they meet residency requirements, but if they just visit ...

Crazy stuff.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Meanwhile, in Utah of all places, gay couples, in both the eyes of the law and God,

and getting married.

"Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

...back in your kennel, Phil.

if the left has its way they will criminalize Christianity....

 

[koshergrl]

Here's what God says about homos:

Leviticus 18:22 ESV

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.


Romans 1:26-28 ESV /

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.




1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV /

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the ade themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


1 Corinthians 6:9 ESV /

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,



1 Timothy 1:10 ESV /

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,



1 Corinthians 7:2 ESV /



But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.




1 Corinthians 7:7-9 ESV /



I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.




Mark 10:6-9 ESV /



But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”


HelpfulNot Helpful
Romans 1:32 ESV / 61 helpful votes

Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

HelpfulNot Helpful



Leviticus 20:13 ESV /

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Jude 1:7 ESV /

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.



Hebrews 13:1-25 ESV /



Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”



1 Timothy 1:10-11 ESV /



The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.



1 Kings 14:24 ESV /



And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.




1 Corinthians 6:10-11 ESV /



Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.



Hebrews 13:4-7 ESV /



Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” So we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?” Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.





Yes, I'm sure they're being married under the watchful eye of God.

But trust me, God does not consider them *married*. He's pretty adamant about the sinfulness of homosexuality.

 

[hunarcy]

Oh, I understand quite clearly. Just have no desire to waste my time on a dickwad who is not really interested in honest debate, anyway.

Ah, the vulgarity...sign that a limited mind has reached it's breaking point.

LMAO!!!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oh, I understand quite clearly. Just have no desire to waste my time on a dickwad who is not really interested in honest debate, anyway.

Ah, the vulgarity...sign that a limited mind has reached it's breaking point.

LMAO!!!!

No, I just figured it was a word you could understand without having to spend 4 minutes to spell it out.



baby steps, hunarcy, baby steps...

 

[hunarcy]

Good point. My bet is that this is going to go a little like the interracial marriage thing went. We're in an intermediate time when there is something of a hodgpodge.

My state of WA, for example, has decided to marry same sex couples. As a result, we now dumped our civil union laws - in fact, we converted those with civil unions to being married. I don't know what we do about those with civil unions from other states - they aren't "married" and we have no civil union law anymore. They can convert those to marriages if they meet residency requirements, but if they just visit ...

Crazy stuff.

Whether we agree or disagree over same sex marriage, in the end it'll all work out..it always does...unless we allow people around us to be intolerant.

 

[hunarcy]

Yes, I'm sure they're being married under the watchful eye of God.

But trust me, God does not consider them *married*. He's pretty adamant about the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Just enjoy everyone you can now...lots of 'em won't make it to Heaven.

 

[hunarcy]

Oh, I understand quite clearly. Just have no desire to waste my time on a dickwad who is not really interested in honest debate, anyway.

Ah, the vulgarity...sign that a limited mind has reached it's breaking point.

LMAO!!!!

No, I just figured it was a word you could understand without having to spend 4 minutes to spell it out.



baby steps, hunarcy, baby steps...

Please don't try to limit me with your inadequacies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's what God says about homos:

Leviticus 18:22 ESV

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.


Romans 1:26-28 ESV /

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.




1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV /

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the ade themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


1 Corinthians 6:9 ESV /

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,



1 Timothy 1:10 ESV /

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,



1 Corinthians 7:2 ESV /



But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.




1 Corinthians 7:7-9 ESV /



I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.




Mark 10:6-9 ESV /



But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”


HelpfulNot Helpful
Romans 1:32 ESV / 61 helpful votes

Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

HelpfulNot Helpful



Leviticus 20:13 ESV /

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Jude 1:7 ESV /

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.



Hebrews 13:1-25 ESV /



Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”



1 Timothy 1:10-11 ESV /



The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.



1 Kings 14:24 ESV /



And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.




1 Corinthians 6:10-11 ESV /



Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.



Hebrews 13:4-7 ESV /



Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” So we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?” Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.





Yes, I'm sure they're being married under the watchful eye of God.

But trust me, God does not consider them *married*. He's pretty adamant about the sinfulness of homosexuality.

I think most of the statements were made by men, not any God.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Meanwhile, in Utah of all places, gay couples, in both the eyes of the law and God,

and getting married.

"Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

...back in your kennel, Phil.

if the left has its way they will criminalize Christianity....

http://oneway2day.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/phil-robertson-duck-taped-mouth-toon-by-rick-mckee-12-20-13_thumb.jpg?w=557&h=377[/img[/QUOTE]

The only one who's said anything in this thread about wanting to make anything illegal was its author,

Foxfyre,

who wants to make certain forms of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly illegal.

If you weren't a partisan hack without an ounce of integrity, you'd be taking her to task.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Meanwhile, in Utah of all places, gay couples, in both the eyes of the law and God,

and getting married.

"Dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

...back in your kennel, Phil.

In the eyes of..GOD?

Lolol...

So, you don't think God has anything to do with civil marriage? Ok, then why do fundy bigots like you keep bringing up God when you're railing against the right of gays to get legally married?

If God has nothing to do with it...

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, one more time.

This thread is not about what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. It doesn't matter in the context of the OP. At any rate I probably disagree with ALL of you AND Phil Robertson about what the Bible says about that, but that is best discussed on another thread. Because it does not matter in the context of this topic.

This thread is not about the content of a sermon that Phil Robertson did or did not preach in 2010. That has nothing to do with his interview with GQ this year. This thread has nothing to do about what Phil Robertson ever said about anything at any time other than his interview with GQ.

This thread is not about whether Phil Robertson is bigoted, prejudiced, or homophobic. If he is all those things, it does not matter.

And I did not say I wanted to make anything illegal. I said that hurting people for nothing more than expressing an opinion SHOULD be illegal. I believe one or two people posting here are actually smart enough to see the distinction between those two things and would not mischaracterize what I said.

This thread is about whether Phil Robertson should be able to express his opinion that an interviewer asked for or in any other context that affects nobody without some mob, group, or organization using that as their excuse to hurt him physically and/or materially.

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

Do you think Phil Robertson should be entitled to the same right?

 

[Sunshine]

Okay, one more time.

This thread is not about what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. It doesn't matter in the context of the OP. At any rate I probably disagree with ALL of you AND Phil Robertson about what the Bible says about that, but that is best discussed on another thread. Because it does not matter in the context of this topic.

This thread is not about the content of a sermon that Phil Robertson did or did not preach in 2010. That has nothing to do with his interview with GQ this year. This thread has nothing to do about what Phil Robertson ever said about anything at any time other than his interview with GQ.

This thread is not about whether Phil Robertson is bigoted, prejudiced, or homophobic. If he is all those things, it does not matter.

And I did not say I wanted to make anything illegal. I said that hurting people for nothing more than expressing an opinion SHOULD be illegal. I believe one or two people posting here are actually smart enough to see the distinction between those two things and would not mischaracterize what I said.

This thread is about whether Phil Robertson should be able to express his opinion that an interviewer asked for or in any other context that affects nobody without some mob, group, or organization using that as their excuse to hurt him physically and/or materially.

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

Do you think Phil Robertson should be entitled to the same right?

He should be able to express his opinion. And the people who don't like his opinion should be able to express theirs. That keeps it all equal as it should be. Taking someone's livelihood is tantamount to taking his life for without his livelihood he cannot feed himself. And if he cannot feed himself he would die.

This case shows that some of us have not progressed beyond the time of Christ when He was put to death for stating his opinions. They have chosen to mitigate the way in which they would put someone to death whose opinions they don't agree with.

 

[Montrovant]

Okay, one more time.

This thread is not about what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. It doesn't matter in the context of the OP. At any rate I probably disagree with ALL of you AND Phil Robertson about what the Bible says about that, but that is best discussed on another thread. Because it does not matter in the context of this topic.

This thread is not about the content of a sermon that Phil Robertson did or did not preach in 2010. That has nothing to do with his interview with GQ this year. This thread has nothing to do about what Phil Robertson ever said about anything at any time other than his interview with GQ.

This thread is not about whether Phil Robertson is bigoted, prejudiced, or homophobic. If he is all those things, it does not matter.

And I did not say I wanted to make anything illegal. I said that hurting people for nothing more than expressing an opinion SHOULD be illegal. I believe one or two people posting here are actually smart enough to see the distinction between those two things and would not mischaracterize what I said.

This thread is about whether Phil Robertson should be able to express his opinion that an interviewer asked for or in any other context that affects nobody without some mob, group, or organization using that as their excuse to hurt him physically and/or materially.

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

Do you think Phil Robertson should be entitled to the same right?

He should be able to express his opinion. And the people who don't like his opinion should be able to express theirs. That keeps it all equal as it should be. Taking someone's livelihood is tantamount to taking his life for without his livelihood he cannot feed himself. And if he cannot feed himself he would die.

This case shows that some of us have not progressed beyond the time of Christ when he was put to death for stating his opinions. They have chosen to mitigate the way in which they would put someone to death whose opinions they don't agree with.

But wasn't it A&E who 'took away his livelihood' and not GLAAD or anyone else? That's the point that keeps sticking with me.

However unethical you think GLAAD's actions were (and I'm not actually sure just what, specifically, they did...that's been pretty vague) it was A&E who actually decided to suspend Robertson.

 

[Montrovant]

Perhaps if she hadn't said she thinks it should be illegal in the first place, I wouldn't have felt compelled to reply to that comment.

And expression of frustration? To repeatedly say that you think something should be illegal, even arguing about why you think it should be? And has Foxfyre said she doesn't actually think it should be illegal, that she was merely frustrated? I think I'll let her tell me if she didn't actually mean what she said.

Saying something should be illegal is saying there should be legislation making it illegal. That may not be the point of the OP, but it's something she has said on multiple occasions now.

Well, if you are so desperate to score a "win" instead of talking about the main issue, be my guest.

Why is my discussion about comments made in the thread just trying to score a win? I'm far from the only person to discuss things only somewhat related to the OP....

 

[Montrovant]

Okay, one more time.

This thread is not about what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. It doesn't matter in the context of the OP. At any rate I probably disagree with ALL of you AND Phil Robertson about what the Bible says about that, but that is best discussed on another thread. Because it does not matter in the context of this topic.

This thread is not about the content of a sermon that Phil Robertson did or did not preach in 2010. That has nothing to do with his interview with GQ this year. This thread has nothing to do about what Phil Robertson ever said about anything at any time other than his interview with GQ.

This thread is not about whether Phil Robertson is bigoted, prejudiced, or homophobic. If he is all those things, it does not matter.

And I did not say I wanted to make anything illegal. I said that hurting people for nothing more than expressing an opinion SHOULD be illegal. I believe one or two people posting here are actually smart enough to see the distinction between those two things and would not mischaracterize what I said.

This thread is about whether Phil Robertson should be able to express his opinion that an interviewer asked for or in any other context that affects nobody without some mob, group, or organization using that as their excuse to hurt him physically and/or materially.

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

Do you think Phil Robertson should be entitled to the same right?

So you would like it if others made it illegal, but you yourself are not going to campaign for it.

It's not the possibility of you getting elected to office and writing a law, or starting a campaign to have a law created that I have issue with. It is the belief that such a law would be a good thing that bothers me; I would consider any such law, at least as vaguely defined as it has been, to be a suppression of free speech.

So no, I'm not arguing about you, personally, being responsible for the creation of any laws. I'm arguing the belief that such a law is a good thing, that it should be a law.

And having the right to state my opinion on a subject is not the same as being free from consequences for doing so. As I've said, I wouldn't be opposed to changes in the regulation or laws regarding lawsuits. I hate how many frivolous lawsuits seem to be thrown around, and forcing someone to spend time and money to defend themselves from a frivolous lawsuit is an unfortunately effective tactic to get people to simply capitulate. I think boycotts, on the other hand, are a completely reasonable form of speech. So the fact that you think certain boycotts should be illegal because you disagree with their intent bothers me.

And let's be clear : if you were just some poster I rarely if ever interacted with, or someone I thought of as the kind of rude, insulting troll that is too prevalent on message boards, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is because I have read so many of your posts and found you to almost always be a kind and generous poster that this bothers me as much as it does. As much as it bothers you that people support GLAAD attempting to have Phil Robertson fired, it bothers me that you would think it a good idea for there to be legal restrictions to what someone can boycott, or who can do so based on the level of their influence.

 

[Vox]

However unethical you think GLAAD's actions were (and I'm not actually sure just what, specifically, they did...that's been pretty vague) it was A&E who actually decided to suspend Robertson.

GLAAD blackmailed A&E.

Blackmail is a crime.

 

[Sunshine]

Okay, one more time.

This thread is not about what the Bible says about homosexuality or anything else. It doesn't matter in the context of the OP. At any rate I probably disagree with ALL of you AND Phil Robertson about what the Bible says about that, but that is best discussed on another thread. Because it does not matter in the context of this topic.

This thread is not about the content of a sermon that Phil Robertson did or did not preach in 2010. That has nothing to do with his interview with GQ this year. This thread has nothing to do about what Phil Robertson ever said about anything at any time other than his interview with GQ.

This thread is not about whether Phil Robertson is bigoted, prejudiced, or homophobic. If he is all those things, it does not matter.

And I did not say I wanted to make anything illegal. I said that hurting people for nothing more than expressing an opinion SHOULD be illegal. I believe one or two people posting here are actually smart enough to see the distinction between those two things and would not mischaracterize what I said.

This thread is about whether Phil Robertson should be able to express his opinion that an interviewer asked for or in any other context that affects nobody without some mob, group, or organization using that as their excuse to hurt him physically and/or materially.

Do you want to have the right to state your opinion without a mob, group, or organization coming after you and trying to hurt you physically and/or materially? Do you consider that your unalieanble right?

Do you think Phil Robertson should be entitled to the same right?

So you would like it if others made it illegal, but you yourself are not going to campaign for it.

It's not the possibility of you getting elected to office and writing a law, or starting a campaign to have a law created that I have issue with. It is the belief that such a law would be a good thing that bothers me; I would consider any such law, at least as vaguely defined as it has been, to be a suppression of free speech.

So no, I'm not arguing about you, personally, being responsible for the creation of any laws. I'm arguing the belief that such a law is a good thing, that it should be a law.

And having the right to state my opinion on a subject is not the same as being free from consequences for doing so. As I've said, I wouldn't be opposed to changes in the regulation or laws regarding lawsuits. I hate how many frivolous lawsuits seem to be thrown around, and forcing someone to spend time and money to defend themselves from a frivolous lawsuit is an unfortunately effective tactic to get people to simply capitulate. I think boycotts, on the other hand, are a completely reasonable form of speech. So the fact that you think certain boycotts should be illegal because you disagree with their intent bothers me.

And let's be clear : if you were just some poster I rarely if ever interacted with, or someone I thought of as the kind of rude, insulting troll that is too prevalent on message boards, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is because I have read so many of your posts and found you to almost always be a kind and generous poster that this bothers me as much as it does. As much as it bothers you that people support GLAAD attempting to have Phil Robertson fired, it bothers me that you would think it a good idea for there to be legal restrictions to what someone can boycott, or who can do so based on the level of their influence.

I'm not getting that from this thread. What I'm getting is that the reaction to Robertson expressing an opinion was unequal. He expressed a belief. GLAAD when after his living. Those are not equal and opposite things. If GLAAD wants to boycott, fine. Boycott. Don't call the network and insist that the person be fired. There is a quantum difference there in a mere 'boycott' and contacting the network and demanding he be fired. A boycott means you stop watching, or you stop buy the product of the sponsor with a well worded reason why. That is not what occurred in this instance. I doubt that what GLAAD will ever be a crime, but I think it is certainly actionable. The pendulum swings both ways, here. There has been enough backlash that I think A&E has learned not to take such drastic action based on a small segment of people who may or may not even be their viewers getting their knickers all in a twist.