A Christian group showed up at the Chigaco Gay Pride...

[CliveStaples]

There's no work that needs to be done.

In your examples, one is a parade celebrating love, fun, and acceptance.

The other is celebrating hate, intolerance, and bigotry.

The difference is that simple. Could you have a parade of that sort? Of course. The Westboro people have there little versions of it all the time. But don't expect to not be hated for it.

...wait, what? They're not celebrating "love, fun, and acceptance." They're celebrating a particular kind of lifestyle. And last time I checked, saying "No, I don't think that kind of lifestyle is actually good" isn't celebrating "hate, intolerance, and bigotry" any more than saying "Yes, I think this kind of lifestyle is actually good."

I can celebrate love, fun, and acceptance and still express my view that a particular kind of lifestyle isn't good.

Let's take a concrete example. Suppose there's a "City pride" march, where people are marching to celebrate living in huge urban areas. I can hold a counter "Rural pride" march that not only celebrates rural living, but also criticizes urban living. I can say "No, I don't think urban living is actually a good thing." And that doesn't commit me to saying "And therefore I f**king hate everyone who lives in cities, and I don't respect their right to live wherever they can afford to."



See how that works? I can say, "Actually, I think you've put the wrong moral value on this kind of thing" without saying "...and the government should punish you" or "and I don't trust you around children" or anything like that. Sometimes, an argument about sexual values is really just an argument about sexual values, not just a pretext to argue against people you hate.

---

Okay, let's work with this a little bit.

The only thing we need to do is slap the USA awake and get them to revise the First Amendment of the Constitution so that Laws prohibiting hate speech that debases one's sexual orientation may finally be introduced and no longer considered 'unconstitutional'.

Might as well get rid of the "free exercise" clause as well, as long as you're shredding the foundations of our liberty.

Speech that isn't offensive doesn't need to be protected. Why? Because it isn't offensive. Nobody's going to complain about it. The only time free speech even matters at all is when the speech in question is offensive; one's commitment to free expression can be tested by seeing how offensive an opinion must be before they support making it illegal.

You just tapped out at "I don't like the fact that you like this kind of people." Hard to believe that the land holding the bones of Thomas Jefferson admits of such an unprincipled descendent like you. And you lecture me about the value of tolerance? Freaking Helen Keller could see the irony of that.