Liberals contend that they are the tolerant ones, but it seems that tolerance to them means that you must agree with their point of view — otherwise, watch out. The following are just a few examples.
When the owner of Chick-fil-A exercised his First Amendment right to be open about his opposition to homosexual marriage, three liberal mayors — from Chicago, Boston and Washington — retaliated by saying that they didn’t want Chick-fil-A’s business in their city. Naturally, this drew no condemnation from “tolerant” liberals.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family were excoriated and called all sorts of vile names by liberals when Mrs. Palin was on the GOP presidential ticket four years ago. Again, not a word from “tolerant” liberals. But when law student Sandra Fluke, that spokeswoman for free contraception, was called a bad name by a conservative talk show host, liberals demanded sponsors stop backing the host. President Obama even personally called Ms. Fluke. (He never called Mrs. Palin.) Is this what they call “tolerance”?
Mitt Romney is falsely accused of being responsible for the death of a woman who had cancer. The response from the “tolerant” contingent: nothing but defense of the advertisement supporting this sewage. Similarly, when the Tea Party was expressing its constitutional right to demonstrate, liberals, some in Congress, labeled them Nazis, terrorists, racists and other vile names. But when the anti-Wall Street crowd demonstrated — including littering, defecating on police cars and causing much damage, costing taxpayers millions — “tolerant” liberals praised and supported them because they had a right to “demonstrate.” Apparently, the same rule didn’t apply to a peaceful, clean Tea Party demonstration.
All points of view, without use of personal smear attacks, should be respected, whether we agree with them or not. Our country deserves better from those who contend to be tolerant, but by their ideological actions demonstrate only opposition and hate.
Mount Vernon, Va.