For a test of tolerance perhaps lightly more realistic, try issues believers face almost daily:
Billy is pro life, basing his position on the belief that the human embryo is human being from conception , because it possesses a soul from that instant
Jimmy is pro choice .A secular humanist, Jimmy believes an embryo /foetus becomes a human being when it is viable ex utero. This normally considered to be six months. Jimmy does not believe in the soul, arguing that the existence of a soul has never been demonstrated. Jimmy believes an abortion is a medical decision between a woman and a doctor, not a moral issue.
Jimmy is openly gay and has a boyfriend.
Billy believes homosexuality is a perversion and mortal sin. The result being that openly gay people are not welcome at his church.
I look forward to a response of christian compassion and acceptance.
Bob is being more tolerant in Scenario B.
“Your stupid” is an ad-homonym attack. Asserting the color is “your color” personalizes the color and enables a continuation of the ad-homonym with “keep it to yourself.” The other person is being directly attacked. Obviously not a very tolerant position.
Jimmy is in no way exempt from being offended. Suppose Bob asserts… "I hate green. It is the color of vomit and rotting dead flesh, Green is the color of trash and I don’t want the walls to be green, BUT, it’s your choice. (Jimmy is still being tolerant.)
He has merely expressed an opinion.
I can tolerate different viewpoints, though I reserve the right to dispute them without being accused of “hate speech”.
What I can’t tolerate is the traditional behavior of most religions, including pogroms, ethnic cleansing, forced marriage, child genital mutilation, child marriage, misogyny, racism, slavery, homophobia…
Australia has anti hate speech laws which I do not support. It can too easily get to the point where criticism and sarcasm can be deemed to be hate speech, or just cause hurt feelings… EG example of some person chalking something hurtful outside of a mosque seems to have become a big deal, being deemed hate speech.
I can see it’s offensive to both women and Muslims. Nor is it something I would do. But it’s a pithy single line and does not call for or seem to support violence. In this case I think both women and Muslims should get over themselves. I support the person’s right to give offence.
Until around the 1970s, New Zealand had “offensive language” laws, under which you could be arrested and fined for saying “fuck”, etc., in public. You could use the N word and equivalent insults for other groups, and that was ok, but if you used foul language that offended the delicate ears of the arresting officer, you were in trouble.
And that’s the trouble with hate speech laws. Hate speech is subjective, and everything is offensive to someone. And while offensive language could get you fined, hate speech can get you some serious jail time.
