OFFICIAL Election Thread

So you think everyone should be coerced into thinking a certain way? Everyone should be forced to fully accept all the lifestyles that others lead? We might as well throw freedom of thought and expression right out the window. Hell, we might as well put a torch to the Bill of Rights while we're at it. Who made you the decider of what the right and wrong way to think are? You're so quick to call bigotry on anyone who doesn't fully accept the gay lifestyle, yet you fail to understand the basic definition, Bigot:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Notice how its says utterly intolerant and how it does not say unaccepting. In the same way that religious people should tolerate gays, gays should tolerate the views of those who are religious. No one should be coerced into fully accepting the lifestyles or views of another. Everyone is free to think as they like, if you don't like that, take it up with the Supreme Court. We don't need thought police like you, you're only perpetuating the same ignorance you're trying to fight.

You just love to twist around everything I say that you don't agree with. As I've said on here in the past, its everyone's right to think as they like. Acting upon those thoughts in a manner that causes harm to others, however, is completely unacceptable and should be dealt with harshly. And to compare someone who believes in the traditional view of marriage, to someone who actively persecutes those who are oppressed, is completely wrong. Granted, there are bigots in the extremes of that camp. However, more often than not thats the exception and not the rule.

I personally think communists and communism are deplorable. Does that mean I should force them to think as I do? The answer is no. People should have free access to information, and from there be able to make up their own minds as to what they think. We as a society can denounce people with heinous perspectives, make them look like fools, and make them the outcasts that they are. However, it is not within our rights to deny their freedom of thought if they do not act upon causing direct harm to others. Taking that right is denial of the universal rights provided by the First Amendment. Or are we to say that not all people are given  that right?

According to the Supreme Court decision of the National Socialist Party of America vs. the Village of Skokie, "The First Amendment makes possible what Justice Holmes called "a marketplace of ideas" where all views can be expressed whether they were popular or not."

You have no idea what a slippery-slope policy it is you're arguing for. I've seen it first-hand, when at 14 I was charged with a hate crime I never committed based only on what the "victim" said.

If only it did, such policies like the one you argue for can be hijacked and used by the ever increasing number of activist judges(who are increasingly left-wing). Thats exactly what happened to me, I had to prove I was innocent because I was being "castigated".

Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

[...]

Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

There are more. But its all pretty much liberal Biased.