Perhaps people use the word too broadly, but things like this

are an example of why. The terminology may not be strictly accurate, but the underlying ideas and motives seem to be the same.

No and i don't have to. All i have to prove to you, that it is perfectly acceptable to beat women in that culture and EVERY men who supports that ruling is just as guilty as the one who actually beats his wife.

It's still functionally the same thing, and can have just as disastrous consequences, even if for some reason people think being bigoted against a race is somehow less deplorable than being bigoted against a religion.

But in all probability, there are lots of men from UAE who disagree with the ruling. I mean, is it fair to label everyone in the US as a baby killer because of how our court ruled on Roe v. Wade? You're using a proxy when none is necessary. Hate the wife beaters. It doesn't matter where they are from.

Does white America have any cultural deficiencies?

I don't understand what this means. Would you not harm someone that entered your house without permission, if you believed that use of force would both 1) be legal and socially acceptable and 2) remove the threat? Why can't your fear of muslims grow to the point where you feel similarly justified in using force against them? I haven't met anyone who sincerely felt that force can never be used legitimately and fear can always grow to justify its removable by any means necessary.

Fear is not bad because it causes violence - violence is bad becauses it causes fear.

lol, like it would be hard for anyone to look up a United States ruling that is bigoted, it means USA is all bigots am i rite?

Really? You are answering a question with a question? How about you answer it yourself and then I can respond.

Whites make up 75% of the American population. Blacks make up 12%. The statistics on single parent families and the disastrous effects it has had on the black community represent an overwhelming trend.

Is there? I don't see any mass protests in that country or any other Islamic country, i don't even see protests from any Islamic group from western world...
I ask you one more time. Is it ok to hate ideology of the group and not hate members of that group. Is it still bigotry?

Yeah, because so many countries outside of Western Europe and North America have the same free speech and free press provisions we do.

Its been awhile since US courts OKed spousal abuse but whatever...EVERY US courts ruling that is bigoted have been wildly contested by people in US and thats why we somewhat sure that at some point we will work them out. Is there are mass protest against women rights in Islam by Moslem's? Still no gays in Iran? Anyone in Iran has anything else to say about it?
LOL. Why is the prevailing argument to this kind of question always "why do you think that your **** don't stink?" Yeah my **** may stink and i will deal with my **** one way or the other. How are you dealing with yours?

Yeah that's what I thought

The victims of religious bigotry, such as homosexuals, would have just cause in being 'bigoted' against the religious (imo). Whilst it's a generalization to charge every religious person with being a consistent follower of scripture (and thus necessarily homophobic), they are enablers of gay hatred by spreading these texts as the literal word of God (despite their selective readings).

A gay person would not have just cause in being bigoted against blacks, citing something such as their disproportionate support for prop 8. People do not chose to be black nor does being black necessitate following a certain moral code antithetical to gay rights. Being religious is a choice and does necessitate an (admittedly broad) adherence to texts that if read literally are against gay rights.

There was an interesting documentary about gay Orthodox Jews and their attempt to reconcile their sexual orientation with scripture... whilst I had admiration for them, their attempts were futile and merely set the stage for further torment, not just for themselves but future gays who would be better off liberated from and actively opposed and segregated from the religion of their forefathers.

How can you justify your position that being bigoted against religion (something someone subscribes to voluntarily which defines their moral code) isn't less deplorable than being bigoted against race (a superficial involuntary attribute).

and who is to blame for that???? Not the same ideology? To rephrase popular thread in this forum: Islam is a package, you can't just pick freedom of religion (unless its a commie country and in that case its also part of ideology).

What about Australia?