|
|
|
|
|
by DonHopkins
2515 days ago
|
|
Then you have a discussion about whether that is right or wrong, instead of having a discussion about how recursively meta you can go with "intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of intolerance of ...". Call it the "no recursion" rule. Case in point: The baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is intolerant of gays. That is unjustified and wrong. The gay couple who sues the baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is intolerant of intolerance. That is justified and right. The baker is unjustified and wrong to complain about the gay couple's intolerance of his intolerance, because he was unjustifiably intolerant himself, first. |
|
Let's say the baker was a victim of sexual abuse and the client was asking to bake a cake rape-themed. (Not in support, you can suppose it was a replica for a documentary let's say). The baker refuses, the client sues, who is the first intolerant?
Another case, a client enter the shop of a muslim baker and asks for a depiction of Allah on a cake. Who is the first intolerant?
Maybe you have answer for all such situations, but how confident are you that a majority agrees in all cases?