I didn't call you racist or sexist. "Lik[ing] women" doesn't exempt anyone from being sexist. Liking anyone and being polite and friendly to them doesn't mean a person is free from prejudice against them.
If you have an issue with Muslims holding political office on the basis that they are Muslim, that is Islamophobia and bigotry. I didn't write the definition. Again, it is also anti-American and anti-Christian. The Constitution and the Bible do not support your stance.
There are commercials with heterosexual couples holding hands. I would venture a guess that the percentage of heterosexual couples depicted doing something romantic/affectionate in commercials and other media and entertainment is way higher than the actual % of couples who
are heterosexual. Is that an "agenda"? Is that being shoved down anyone's throat? By bringing this up, you are admitting that you don't want gay couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. That's textbook homophobia, no matter how nice and polite you might be to their face.
That's not name-calling. That is accurately identifying something according to very basic and universally known definitions and I have been clear, thorough, consistent, patient, and correct in explaining why multiple times now. That it is an unpleasant something does not make it name-calling. I doubt you feel shame, but you should. Being anti-American, anti-Christian, and prejudicial should be something anyone aspiring to be patriotic, Christian, and fair toward all people is ashamed of. And that shame should motivate you to change. That's often been what has motivated me to make changes in my life.
*I* mentioned mental health. I did. ME. I want s
ome money diverted from the militarization of police into hiring
mental health workers skilled at deescalation. I've already said this. Instead of addressing what I actually said, you inserted a florist into it as the alternative to calling police, which implies that I just want pretty, comforting, frivolous things. That is condescending and it is a strawman, which I have defined for you and explained to you several times already. According to you, though, I am stupid, so it should come as no surprise that I am incapable of comprehending your hypothetical.
It's also a strawman to act as if I said there is never any place for police.
People and gorillas who think their rights are being oppressed because other people's rights are respected after not being respected for so long are, in that instance, acting entitled and privileged. Gay marriage and the ability for gay people to hold hands in public without getting beat up are rights they should have always had, and it is not shoving it down your throat or taking away from your bananas. But I feel silly explaining that to you when I am so stupid.
Look into the
Tolerance Paradox: "
unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance... We must therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate intolerance". (Those are 2 different links.) Ultimately, intolerance cannot be tolerated. We must be intolerant of intolerance. That is not hypocritical , and it is the fallacy of false equivalence to claim those are the same type of intolerance.