Well, they can’t legally stop them. They did the only thing they could do and voted to condemn them. The vote was an attempt to show dissaproval by the city. Not individual boardmembers. It equates an official act by the city, so the city should be held accountable.
I didn’t move the goalposts, Updike did, when he brought the first amendment into it in post #10.
As far as your definition of tolerance:
In what way was what the supes did any different? They acknowledged that they disapproved of the actions of the group and still allowed them to have their concert inside the city. Why is it necessary they pretend to agree with them as well?
I won’t stand for such behaviour!
Except the only goalpost shifting here is on behalf of the people who are trying to redefine “tolerance” to mean “inability to publically disagree with other viewpoints.” Nothing the city council did was intolerant. They tolerated this rally being held in their city. Being tolerant doesn’t mean being quiet.
Allowing the group to protest is what made them tolerant? So I guess any city that doesn’t break the law and surpress citizens first amendment rights is a bastion of tolerance?
All civil rights, really. For any and every group. Even if it happens to be a group bent on depriving any other group of its civil rights.
Sorry, you lost me. Who protested what now?
Nice guess, but you haven’t quite got it. Any city that breaks the law and suppresses its citizen’s first ammendment rights is, of course, being intolerant. Since the city council of San Francisco didn’t do that in this particular case, then it’s not accurate to use this case to highlight the intolerance of the San Francisco city council. There are any number of other actions they could take, that have no relation to the first ammendment, that would make them intolerant.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Sorry, you lost me. Who protested what now?[//QUOTE]
FWIU the Christian group was there to protest SF’s attempts to marry gays.
If they did anything to stop them because they disagreed with them then how would that not be against their first amendment rights?
Having surfed several web sites of the Christian Right that support Battle Cry, I would have to say I have been struck by how little God or religion plays a part in their message. Several sites reported the group that split off from the main event to stand in front of San Francisco City Hall and chant condemnations of “secular” influences, but none of them seem to have mentioned any prayers for a reform of San Francisco attitudes or any appeals to Christian theology to support their position.
So, barring any actual evidence of intolerance toward religion, I would have to say that the Supervisors showed a stupid overreaction to an event, but that claims of religious intolerance have simply been manufactured for the purpose of discussion, here.
But they didn’t! They condemned certain actions and views taken by the group. How did that stop the christian youth group from going forward with the concert? It didn’t. There were 25K people in attendance.
In their own words:
The 25,000 Christian Youth that rallied have certain religious beliefs, that’s true. Calling those beliefs “provactive” “anti-gay” and “anti-choice” sounds like a condemnation of those beliefs to me.
Do you support this government interference in religious freedom?
Whoa, slow down, you are the one that said they could stop them without violating their rights. I asked how. I said they did what they could to condemn people for trying to ‘‘negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.’’ Anything else would be illegal. Just because they allowed it does not make them tolerant, it makes them law abiding. How dare they try to influence the politics in San Francisco? Because it is their rights as citizens.
Saying this:
In the middle of downtown San Francisco could very easily be termed “provocative” and it’s most definitely “anti-gay.” Would you characterize it otherwise?
Um…where did I say that? I said allowing all groups to say whatever they wanted, even when that group (christian youth) was bent on taking other groups’ civil liberties away.
Sorry, it was Miller.
Oh, good, I thought I was having major TIA’s. But I don’t think that’s what Miller was saying, either. He said the BofS could have done many things which would’ve been intolerant, but chose to do this instead. Miller, please correct me if that isn’t what you meant.
Actually, I also seem to have found a bit of bait-and-switch going on, here.
Everyone (pro and con) has a list of quoted words from the resolution, but the only place I have found a synopsis of the resolution (despite my requests for someone here to provide evidence of what was said), indicates that the rally in AT&T park was never condemned. The reference to the resolution only condemns the minor rally held on the steps of the City Hall–the one which has no religious referents that anyone (including multiple Religious Right web sites) has provided.
060371 [Condemning upcoming rally to be held by anti-abortion groups in front of City Hall on Friday, March 24, 2006] Resolution condemning upcoming rally to be held by anti-abortion groups in front of City Hall on Friday, March 24, 2006. Supervisors Ammiano, Ma, Maxwell, Daly, Peskin, Mirkarimi presented. ADOPTED.
As long as the condemnation was limited to a small group of people calling for political changes, divorced from theology, this whole issue is even sillier than first claimed.
(Any evidence of actual condemnation of religious belief is welcome.)
I don’t call this government interference in religious freedom. I’m not sure you can call being anti gay and anti abortion religious beliefs. They may believe these things are immoral and bad for society based on their interpretation of the Bible but regardless of the source of their opinion when they actively campaign to influence the laws of this country it becomes a political issue not a religious one. That means anyone has a right to express an opinion.
I agree with the poster that said it should have been done by an individual or individuals rather than a statement by the board.
If the KKK was holding a march could city officials say “Although we find their views morally repugnant we must support the first amendment and allow them to rally?”
Would that be intolerant? Would it be interfering with their religious freedom?
I think the OP makes a good point. IS it intolerant simply to express disagreement or disapproval? I don’t think so.
I’m thinking it may be a matter of degrees. Disagreeing without being hateful, sarcastic, dismissive, can still be tolerant. If you have little self control and call people or groups names and spit venom at them, then I would say that crosses into intolerant.
“I strongly disagree with their position” is still tolerant
“I find them morally repugnant” stronger but still on the line.
" They’re a bunch of hypocritical ignorant whack job assholes"
pretty intolerant
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
As long as the condemnation was limited to a small group of people calling for political changes, divorced from theology, this whole issue is even sillier than first claimed.
[QUOTE]
Again, I must ask, why is the government issuing condemnations of large groups of people, at all?