Or is it that because the other way goes “against the presumed Narrative”?
Shortly thereafter, Jeremy Peters of the New York Times was asked about the difference between the Indiana RFRA law as it was written and as it stood now. Peters decided to unveil the bigger issue with the RFRA laws themselves: “these laws look as if they’re coming from a dark place. They are designed in many cases to express a disapproval about gay relationships. And that’s what’s so upsetting to people about this.”
Putting aside the fact that RFRA laws have been around since 1993, long before gay rights became an issue, Peters has said more than he realizes. This is not about equal rights for homosexuals. It is about the eradication of a judgment value. The very expression of “disapproval” of gay relationships is an intrinsic evil originating from a “dark place[s].”
This raises the question, if laws that are “designed to express a disapproval about gay relationships” are things that “come from a dark place” then why are laws “designed to express a disapproval” of religious freedom not treated with the same contempt?
Indeed. Tolerance is bi-directional – when it stops being such, tolerance has been redefined and demoted to mere bigotry for “The Other”. Or put another way – dressed up bullying.
(H/T: Newsbusters)
