I think that is a fair and widely accepted definition of tolerance. Nowhere in that definition is any mention of having to accept a differing viewpoint. Tolerance is simply acknowledging the right of others to have a different viewpoint and not discriminating against them for holding a different viewpoint.
In a recent article on Townhall, Kellie Fiedorek writes that the left is forcing its ideals on the right, specifically, the recent Supreme Court decision regarding DOMA is forcing people to accept same sex marriage.
Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post is correct to say that tolerance contemplates “living with others’ views that you might not like,” but she fails to recognize that while you might respect others’ views, tolerance does not give the government license to coerce you to conform to those views against your conscience. The First Amendment is very clear about this. And it is the First Amendment that guarantees protection for the diverse opinions in our society.
Is the government forcing people to enter into same sex marriage? Is this some epidemic of which I am not aware?
We cannot maintain a free and robust democracy unless we all are free not just to speak, but also to exercise our conscience. This then begs the question of whether champions of “tolerance” are prepared to in fact tolerate those with a different viewpoint or vision.
I don’t think she has a proper grasp on the English language because she is exercising her conscience by speaking out against same sex marriage. And, I am being tolerant of her antiquated and discriminatory viewpoint that all people do not deserve the same rights and freedoms.
People have a right to oppose same sex marriage if they want to do so. I have a right to support it. Proponents of same sex marriage are not forcing opponents to enter into a same sex marriage. We are simply asking those who oppose same sex marriage to grant us the same respect and tolerance we grant them.
What do you think, am I being tolerant enough?