Tolerance is "too controversial" for CBS and NBC

You know they are still airing ads from fundie churches that cover controvercial subjects like abortion right?

 

nope, havent seen em...what network/churches?

 

-"It's not the same. Sorry you can't make the distinction."

Of course it's the same. Here you conveniently and transparently fail to acknowledge the same fact you previously stated. They broadcast what's in their self interest. If they don't anticipate profit they ignore it whether it's Bush or paid programming. That's a fact. It's the same modus operandi.

-"Where are the networks broadcasting hours of religious programming?

On local affiliates.

"There's all types of discrimination."

That's right. And where it causes socioeconomic deprivation it needs to be fixed. It''s called social progress. Saying "There's all types of discrimination" implies that because something exists it's justified. Here you're really scraping the immoral bottom of the barrel. The filthy dregs.

-"Brothers and sisters didn't choose [in consideration of incest]. Should we dictate how many people you can be married to?

Do you promote incest and polygamy?

-"It's not antigay on the part of the broadcast companies"
"The bigotry is not on the part of the broadcast companies"

This is the fundamental point on which we disagree and where you are wrong. You advance this claim over and over providing for it no support whatsoever just mindless repetition. No wonder. Because it's a fiction for which no support exists.

From 3 perspectives it's clear the refusal by the networks to air the ad constitutes an act of bigotry: commmon sense, rationality and empirical fact.

Common Sense: I gave the example of blacks being denied education on the basis of bigotry. If someone in that era made a plea for equality and inclusion and if that plea were rejected it's aiding and abetting bigotry.

I also gave the example of a person knowingly standing idly by while a crime is committed being guilty by noninterventional complicity. In parallel one could accuse the networks of not taking a proactive stance. Sometimes they do editorially seize the initiative on social issues. But in this case their comportment was even worse. They were offered an opportunity to redress inequality and actively turned it down. It's like an individual watching a crime in commission, being offered the means to do something about it and rejecting that opportunity. An immoral, bigoted act of the first degree all in the name of $$$ and self interest.

Rationality: To reject social equity in a context of social inequity is bigotry by definition.

Empirical Fact: The rejection of the ad garnered spots in some national media. What's unusual about the story that would warrant coverage? The unusual aspect is that it's a rejection of tolerance and a perpetuation of exclusion. Bigotry.

Somewhere above you alluded to the gay community judging the add bigoted. No doubt this is the case the gay community ought to know they're the victims. You wouldn't expect bigots to have a problem with what happened. You don't have a problem with it.

"Society and govenment have decided that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Societies and governments have been wrong before in notably immoral and tragic ways. It's the first lesson in the book of good citizenship.

"I think people are sick and tired of being bombarded with homosexuality."

Victims of discrimination and inequality wil always be sick and tired of discrimination and inequality and you will never stop hearing from them.

"I reject your stupidity."

I reject your pandering to bigotry. I reject your contention that discrimination is its own justification. I reject your intolerance of forums of social progress. One must obviously reject your assertions without justifications. May fate rectify the moral shallowness of your character.