taking out the dependent leaves you with this
Which is a perfectly valid statement.
i found his entire first comment
Which points out his reason for why he believes his views are not intolerant (the fabric of society argument). He simply uses the law and the SC as name dropping.
intolerance is freedom of speech, and if he took that position i'd have less of a problem with him, but the only argument he offers in his defense is that since it is the law of the land, he can't be intolerant for approving of that law, because laws are never intolerant, either that is what he suggests or he has no argument at all in his defense
Only when you ignore what you quoted. He says he is not intolerant and neither is the law. Why? Because his views go to the fabric of society, and it isn't intolerant to back the fabric of society. The law says the same thing.
I don't see him at all saying that laws and the Supreme Court can't be intolerant. If you say that, you really don't know him AT ALL (he is extremely anti-abortion).
Comment