Selective intolerance

[muckefuck]

So for days I've been mulling a rant in response to this open letter chastising those who called for the resignation of Brendan Eich and warning of the dire consequences of this kind of "intolerance". (I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty sick of being called "intolerant" for not particularly caring that an anti-gay millionaire lost his job for badly handling his first PR crisis as CEO.) Now, thanks to Donald Sterling, I don't have to.

I do wonder if I'm guilty of a false equivalence here, but to the degree the cases aren't comparable, I think they actually favour Sterling. After all, his remarks were private and involved only private affairs (i.e. who his girlfriend should associate with). Eich's donation was public and had the political aim of depriving others of their civil rights (unconstitutionally, as it turns out). David Badash spells it all out pretty clearly I think. Perhaps I'm missing something, though, so I'm hoping one of the signatories comes forward to take and defend a stand on Sterling so I can pick through their justification.

Comments

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Do you have a legal citation for that? I know a lot of people believe it to be true, but that doesn't make it so.

To point up only one major difference: I'm allowed to euthanise a pet I own as long as I do it humanely. I'm not aware that the state places any burden on me to prove that the euthanisation was "medically necessary" or "in the best interests of the animal" or anything of that sort. I don't have the same broad rights with regard to my children (unless I'm Belgian, that is).