Actually, that's not what freedom means. Freedom defines as privilege to do as one likes and wants. However, it does not include toleration because freedom includes hate speech, which leads to violations of certain rights and religious rights is one of them. Gay pride parade is a violation of religious rights, because religions do not accept homosexuality.
Freedom is freedom.
The illusion is that there is anything other than anarchy in practice. Governments are a system of organizing free will toward mutually determined causes.
I am free, at any time, to build a bomb and blow people up.
The government is free to, at any time, enforce one of the numerous laws I would be breaking in doing so.
The people are free to, at any time, adjust the laws the government is allowed to enforce (well, unless they have consented to a government that functions in some other manner - consent of which can still be revoked though usually only via process of revolution).
Freedom implies that I am free to disapprove of homosexual relationships.
It does not imply that I can be free from others being homosexual.
This is classic liberal insanity on your part. The number of American Conservatives who believe "religious freedom" implies a society free of homosexuals or 'gay pride' is exceptionally small and generally treated as exiles (such as Westboro).
A Jewish stabbed 6 people during a gay pride parade -
You must be registered for see links
Muslims are not the only ones against homosexuality, all religions are and the Jewish man (God bless him) was provoked by the gay pride parade, which again takes us to the conclusion:
freedom of gay pride parade is a violation of religious rights.
Only if you're stupid.
The Jewish man -chose- to confront the gay pride parade and -chose- to commit violence.
He doesn't have a right to not be offended by the free actions of others. He does, however, have the responsibility of respecting the law regarding not assaulting people.
This is classic European tribalism to boot. It insists that one group or another has predominant control over a region - that people from one tribe should not have to tolerate the existence of people from another tribe within their territory. "This is a Church town, so no gay pride." Or "This is a Gay town, so no Churches."
When I presented this as one of the reasons why the member states of Yugoslavia needed a dictator to ever hope to accomplish the dream of those unified states, I was derided as thinking like a Cetnik. Which is true, to an extent. But the mentality is present and it means that representative republics of nations in Europe are impossible (such as the EU) - since the tribal mentality is so deeply rooted into the culture that it takes a dictator who people trust with the dream of unification to maintain stability.
This is amplified by the European concept of unconstrained government where the government can do whatever it jolly well wants. There are very few constraints upon the authority of government. This means that any groups that can claim a majority within a representative republic end up ramming policies through the system that alienate the satellite and minority members.
This means that classic liberal ideas of government simply collapse within Europe because the tribal mindset regarding nations of men simply results in lawless majorities who make the laws up to favor themselves at every turn until the region collapses into secession. No one has any reason to trust the democratic processes of a republic.
Which is why a strong dictator is the only way, through governing structure, that such unification can be achieved - an individual with absolute authority to suppress, destroy, and slaughter tribal leadership while being entrusted with and faithful to the dream of a unified territory.
At least with the unconstrained view of government.
But to have a constrained government - you need to believe that laws limiting the use of governing power ultimately serve the best interests of the people and come before fleeting desires to use governing power to intervene in various scenarios. Since that is completely absent of the European mindset - the only viable solution is a virtuous totalitarian who could, potentially, lay the groundwork for trusted and limited governing systems by, himself, exercising strict control over his own authority and setting the statistical case that his lack of intervention was far better for the population than his intervention.
The Chinese Taoists noticed this over a thousand years ago. They noted that the emperors who endeavored to assist their people frequently made conditions worse and their states suffered - even failed. Emperors who tended to sit back and let the population at large handle their own affairs ended up having the most prosperous territories and periods of rule.
There is no freedom and no one needs to tolerate something that provokes them. Would you tolerate someone who insults your family in the name of freedom of speech?
It is a violation of the law to commit assault and murder.
I may not roll over and take it lying down, but there's no reason for me to commit to violating the law just because someone is being offensive to me. I am in control of my actions and no one should insist that I was 'made' to run out and punch someone in the face for insulting my family.
I may still choose to - but I have to accept the consequences of breaking the law. Or, rather, I can't expect to escape the consequences of breaking the law just because someone hurt my feelings.
Likewise - it's completely insane to believe that I can solve the problem of my poor decision making by making it illegal to hurt my feelings.
A person is free to do say or do what he/she want, but there is a consequence for it. Remember that.
You either didn't read, or seriously failed to comprehend the post you replied to.
There should be a law to limit freedom, as that would decrease violence and violations of rights.
So, by making it illegal to hurt my feelings, rather than me choosing to run out and break the law against assault... you dispatch armed police officers to detain and fine the same person.
Way to de-escalate the situation, there.
What you are effectively doing is creating new rights and making it a crime to do things perceived to interfere with those rights.
I'm a cake decorator and I don't feel comfortable creating a cake that is a giant set of naked boobs as a gag for a bachelor party. I feel mildly offended and uncomfortable by the request - they feel offended and uncomfortable because of the refusal. Who wins?
If the recent round of court decisions are any precedent - the law shows up and says that my business has to pay a fine if I don't make the naked boobie cake I'm uncomfortable with making. Although once the case makes the news, I'm sure some feminist group will be along to protest or sue the bachelor party for its offense to women.
Now, legally, if someone wanted me to make a cake I don't have on my menu - I can tell them that I don't make that kind of cake and direct them to another establishment. If you walk into a restaurant and ask for Sushi, only certain restaurants serve it for a number of reasons. They would decline to serve you Sushi. In some restaurants, they don't do custom orders of food. The customer has every right to walk out and go someplace else, but the establishment has no obligation to make something for anyone. They can even choose to close early and decline service to people showing up later than their posted hours.
Yet - if you're not comfortable baking a cake... you have to make it, or else.
This process is a slippery slope. As people become accustomed to additional law-protected rights, they become more hostile towards the perceived offenses of other people. It never stops. It never relents, and eventually the system collapses into corruption and anarchy as it becomes impossible to enforce the numerous conflicting guarantees of an offense-free life.
Kids can choose to eat fast food, they can't choose to suffer from seckndhand smoke.
No, they can't choose regarding consumption of fast food.
That is the food their parent is providing. They can either eat it, or go hungry. Eventually, it becomes a scenario where they can either eat or starve to death.
I was sent away from the table of non-fast food after refusing to eat a few times.
I learned to eat what was prepared for dinner and to get any requests for dinner in when Mom was making the shopping list.
