There is an interesting parallel between two debates currently being reported in The Tribune. Both have advocates for the idea that it is OK to go on marginalizing groups of people whenever you did not explicitly intend to offend them.
The first example is the attitude of “Daniel,” who didn’t think naming a fraternity party “Colonial Bros and Nava-Hos” was meant to be racist and that using a street word for prostitute was a legitimate historical way to celebrate Thanksgiving.
This really isn’t that different from the attitude of those who cite history to justify foisting their own religion onto others at public meetings because the prayers are consistent with their own beliefs.
The point is not whether one agrees that some other group of people should be offended, but rather that they are, and continuing to be hurtful doesn’t reflect well on one’s own personal and group values.