[flagged]
Plenty of times, unfortunately. You might not see it often— are you openly, publicly gay? Do you hold your boyfriend or husbands hand in public? Are you seen going to and leaving a queer bar on the regular? Have you tried to adopt a child with your same-sex significant other, or are seen in public or going to a public school with your adopted child? If you’re not the target of homophobia it makes sense to not experience very much of it.
I feel for you, having the world disagree with your values and opinions can be exhausting. Wouldn't it be nice if we could force people to live the way we want, even if they don't agree? It'd be nice to have that sort of authority, wouldn't it?
For example, it really bothers me when I hear hateful religious doctrine spouted in public. I shouldn't have to listen to that when I walk down the street.
We should have to, though, because of freedom of speech. Graphic pornographic content is a different animal legally. Though I would suggest the parent poster avoid walking down the dead-end street clearly marked "pornhub".
"Legally" isn't really the question, as that's about what is rather than what ought to be.
That said, nobody has to listen, that's definitely not part of freedom of speech. They have to be allowed to listen, which is related but different.
And for what ought to be… well, christian religious commandments have included calls to burn people at the stake if they follow a different faith, and such calls have been listened to and acted on. Heck, I'm in at least four distinct groups people have used religious justifications to demonise.
If you think it won't happen to you, I'd add that sacred cows can be literal, so what happens when Hindu fundamentalism reaches your doorstep and some people call for you to be lynched for eating beef (which is a thing that has happened)? And unlike sexuality, you have a degree of control over the food you consume.
Why should it be. You are claiming one thing falls under the general "freedom of speech", I assume you mean the 1st admendment, but then you call pornography different but cite the law.
Why is pornography wrong? Why is it worse than hate speech? How does it harm you directly? Hate speech can make people feel unsafe, uncomfortable, and can cause stress but it's allowed.
Imagine you walked down the street and two people were just openly having sex, how does that harm you, how does that harm your family? Maybe I should ask, is that harm worse than hate speech?
Freedom of speech is just one part of the 1st amendment, there's also freedom of expression.
I can't read the original article (503 - "Service Unavailable" from a capacity issue), but where are you exposed to "graphic pornographic content" walking down a street today?
If that's happening on a public street today, I tend to agree with you, but I struggle to understand where that's happening today.
I'm sorry you hear things in public that offend you, but others in your group are literally telling others they are evil for existing, so maybe you can handle a 'Jesus Christ' here an there.
Tolerance works both ways. I shouldn't have to see cows getting eaten when I walk down the street.
TLDR don't cry me a river your Protestant work ethic already increased water levels
"this stuff really bothers us" Have you tried minding your own business? Christianity is forced on people through money ("in god we trust"), politics, the legal system (christianity-based laws and morality) schools (pledge of allegiance, book bans), etc.
But sure, you shouldn't have to see graphic porn when walking down the street; is this an actual issue? Does people's privacy and online services have to be amended to make this illegal? Because last time I checked, nothing changed about public decency, and it's not a religious issue.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.