In the news

I'd hazard a guess and say those views are more to do with him being a cunt. I'm not religious but know plenty of people who are, it's not an excuse.

I'd say people are less prejudiced against him because he holds religious views; rather because they think that those views (were they held by anybody) are incompatible with the job he wants?

Also, he's not exactly the most attractive character to huge swathes of the population.

If he were Islamic he would hold the same views, so are we being "prejudiced" or should we be more tolerant of his position on these subjects ?

This whole "you're fine with Muslims being bigots, but not white people" augment that gets trotted out by the alt right is so basic.

So-called "liberals" don't think being a bigot is fine as long as your brown. They think that you shouldn't make mass (often false) generalisations and pejorative statements about a large group of people. Not all Muslims want to throw gay people off roofs. Lots of them drink, have premarital sex, and all sorts of other things that are prohibited depending on your particular beliefs and how much you think it's necessary to adhere to them... just like Jews or RCs.

... it's almost as if people aren't binary entities who all fall into one of two extremes.

Personally I don't have any issue with JRM holding views informed by his religious beliefs. It's a free country. The point I start objecting is when he uses them to inform his political actions. While it makes sense that his personal informs his political, once you move into the political you're open to criticism. It would be the same whatever denomination he was.

Equally I think it's important to understand that you can have a moral view that runs counter to your opinion on a policy one. For eg, personally I think it's hard to make a sound moral/philosophical case for abortion. However, from a legal and policy perspective I don't think that ranks as a decision factor. Therefore, were I in the position, it wouldn't effect my voting on a bill.

Also the starting point in any discussion is that you should be tolerant of peoples views. You should listen to them, weigh them up on their logic and any evidence available, then form a conclusion.

I've listened to lots of peoples' views on gay marriage and taken them on board. I've yet to hear a convincing one. I'd like to use a cullender analogy, but unfortunately that implies some sort of structure around the holes.

From my experience in NI, being tolerant towards people that are happy to vote against human rights (the abortion law in NI violates this)
and
against other people enjoying freedoms the state gives to others (LGBT marriage) is a bad idea.

Anybody that can't separate their personal views and votes accordingly as he does is the thin end of the wedge. The Catholic PM of France that signed the abortion law or the Dutch Calvinist that signed off the euthanasia laws he ain't.

It's a bit simple to say Islamic people always hold those views...there are dominantly Muslim countries where abortion laws are more liberal than his views. Liberal Catholics also really don't agree with him, he's parroting only the stance of the RCC which can go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I find him odd as he despises the EU and its meddlin' rules, but claims to put the rules of the Vatican before anything else. Which isn't an unelected bunch of Europeans issuing rules to honest John Bull.

His views are due to him being a bigot.
I am, personally, prejudiced against bigots.
However they wrap it up.