# SCOTUS will hear case of Tolerant v. Intolerant

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [December 8, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448 "2009-12-08T14:27:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/81 "2009-12-16T16:50:56Z")

</div>

> [@Bricker](#):
>
> One man’s disruption is fifty men’s needed change.

Depends on if the “change” is in good faith or not, right?

> [@](#):
>
> The idea I’m floating here is that there might be 25 Jewish students in this group. If “Jews for Jesus” brings 26 members, they can fundamentally change the organization – elect their own officers, contribute to their own charities – and those directions would be anathema to the REAL Jews.

And, knowing that the organization they were purporting to want to “join” had views which did not just differ from but were antithetical to their own (which they would not consider reviewing or reconsidering, certainly), they could instead form their own Jews for Jesus Law Society. And they would know that they could, so their motives in doing otherwise would have to enter a discussion about rights, wouldn’t they?

> [@](#):
>
> That doesn’t seem wise. It seems great for viewpoints which enjoy the majority.

Diversity of viewpoints is preserved and honored in diversity between organizations as well as within them, isn’t it? What, did you think they wouldn’t be aware of each other? :dubious:

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448.md?page=4)