No... What the president of the US does can not be thrown out because the other candidate in the election - which ceased to matter as soon as it ended - did this, that or the other.
Trump did nothing wrong here, so there is nothing to excuse.
But that's not what I am trying to say. I am pointing out the hypocrisy in over-the-top attacking Trump on something that is universal. And for trying to label people guilty of 'wrong-think' as a hate group.
Just because a person opposes gay marriage doe not mean they hate.
They are not a hate group anywhere. Not even in your country.
I am not a fan of their ideology, but they have just as much a claim to being 'right' as you do. This trend of demonizing anyone with another view is making me sad.
I would argue that it is, in any country. They also can not "claim to be right". Advocating and lobbying for infringements upon the rights of others purely because it hurts your feelings and you disagree with it makes you part of a hate group. It doesn't need to be violent.
I would argue that it is, in any country.
I think I'm with @InnocentBystander on this one. I wouldn't call it hate speech, either. You're allowed to express your views in a peaceful way; just because you think someone's life choices are bad does not mean you are engaging in hate speech; the common definition would imply so, but I find the whole idea of hate speech itself kind of all-encompassing to the point of near-uselessness.
Hate Speech is weird because it basically says you can't criticize others on the basis of some things, although you could on other things with no stigma attached. So if I say "You're living an immoral life because you use cocaine and LSD", no one would accuse me of hate speech. But if I said "You're living an immoral life because you engage in homosexual activity", now this is hate speech. I don't find calling anyone out on it particularly useful in the first place, as it basically says "If you have an opinion that goes against the accepted view on certain matters, you have engaged in 'hate speech' and will now be vilified and ostracized from society". That's an unhealthy attitude for a society to have in general.
I much prefer open discourse, because the bad ideas (like discriminating against homosexuals) have to come out into the light then, and it becomes easy to see how little weight they actually have. With the "hate speech" stigma on people, it encourages them to run to the shadows - not engaging openly and freely, but instead harboring their true feelings in secret, becoming disillusioned with society and their peers all the while. You don't do anything toward actually eradicating the bad ideas some have through these kinds of actions and accusation.
Finally, and this is a huge deal to me - none of this is a crime. You're allowed to discriminate against others for illogical reasons. You're allowed to refuse to associate with others because of their religion or race. All of this is completely legal. And it should be. So I'm not sure what you even want to do here. The duly elected president of the United States is speaking with a group that has certain ideas, a group that wants to persuade others that their ideas are valid and legitimate, and a group that forwards those ideas in a legitimate and legal way. I don't see any story here. The only thing I see is "These ideas are shit, and people should not speak at these groups' functions because they legitimize them." I think that's a narrow view, but I can at least see the argument.
They also can not "claim to be right".
If they cannot claim to be right, where is the line drawn on who can and cannot be "right"? Is it only the majority view that society accepts?
Advocating and lobbying for infringements upon the rights of others purely because it hurts your feelings and you disagree with it makes you part of a hate group.
I think you have their motives wrong - the truly religious, I think, believe that one shouldn't engage in homosexual behavior because it actually harms your soul to do so. Now I think they're way off-base. I don't think there's anything wrong, at any level, with engaging in sexual behavior in any circumstance, so long as it's all consensual by all parties.
But I also firmly support their right to say "I think people who do X are doing a bad thing, and I want to tell them so and explain to everyone why". In the same way one could say that using the extreme drugs is bad. If you forbid individuals from speaking their mind and being honest about how they view the world...well, it's just bad. Let the bad ideas come out freely. When they're in the open light, it will be easy for intelligent people to see how wrong they really are.
It doesn't need to be violent.
No, but it does require hate.
I think it is important to remember that this is coming from a UK source intended for UK readers. We don't really have stuff like this here, it is an oddity founded on principles that are not mainstream in our country. If it existed here, an anti-LGBT hate group is exactly what it would be.
No... What the president of the US does can not be thrown out because the other candidate in the election - which ceased to matter as soon as it ended - did this, that or the other.