Author Topic: Liberals Publicly Persecute Actor Because of His "Intolerance"  (Read 193 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,551
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them

Liberals Publicly Persecute Actor Because of His "Intolerance"

Posted on July 26, 2014 by Frank Camp — 117 Comments   
 “I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness.” – Christopher Hitchens

Tolerance is a funny thing. Those who practice it best are those who talk about it the least. Tolerance shouldn’t be trumpeted from the rooftops for all the word to see, it should be innate, and intimate, simply because it is the right thing to do. Those who behave in a tolerant way aren’t condoning behavior or practices that they themselves may find objectionable, they are simply respecting our God-given right to free will. Tolerance is an understanding that we, as human beings, aren’t always on the same page. However, the left sees tolerance differently.

Tolerance is a practice that has been defined by the left as an act of condoning. Conservatives must condone any and all behavior that they may find objectionable, even if it violates their own religious or personal code. Should they make a personal choice not to participate in practices to which they are opposed, they must be publicly shamed, and verbally flogged. On the other hand, if a liberal believes something to be objectionable, they have every right to object. That is the leftist definition of tolerance.

According to Fox DC, Luke Grimes, an actor on HBO’s True Blood recently quit the show after he was told that his character would be entering a relationship with another man. This decision, which was based on Luke Grimes’ personal beliefs, has had an unpleasant ripple effect. Nathan Ellis, one of his co-stars had this to say:

“You quit your job because you don’t want to play a gay part? You make a big statement when you go, ‘I don’t want to play this part because it’s gay…“


According to Dan Gainor, VP of Business and Culture at the Media Research Center:

“It’s pretty clear Luke will suffer as a result. Hollywood will either say he was unprofessional or a phobe of some sort…It is his prerogative, but he will suffer for it.”

Hmm, doesn’t seem too tolerant, does it? Luke Grimes made a personal decision, which he did not broadcast, based on his personal, or religious belief system, and he will suffer for it? His decision was his own, and the media is blowing it up because it stands in contradiction to their (also personal) beliefs. If a liberal actor refused to play a part because the character was going to convert to Christianity, do you think for a second that their career would be endangered? No. Either nothing would be said about it, or, more likely, they would be praised for standing up to the mean, mean Christians.

The funny thing is, if a liberal actor did quit because his character was Christian, conservatives wouldn’t bat an eye. They would make a joke, and move on, because that is tolerance. It’s disappointing to see someone publicly persecuted, especially when it’s because of a personal decision they did not broadcast?

Tolerance is a two-way street, but apparently, the left can’t read the road signs.

Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo