Over the past few days we have witnessed an intense debate over Cathay Cineleisure's decision to put up posters promoting Pink Dot. But that is not the biggest crux of the issue. The biggest crux is what is the fight for and about. I have shared my position. Those who have agreed with mine have shared ours. But the most important question is what is the crux of the matter.
Is the fight about the "freedom to love"? I don't think so. If it is truly about love, then how can you on the "freedom to love" movement subject others to the other side of the aisle the most unlovable form of response? Let's face the hard truth, a good tree bears good fruits and your fruits give you away. If it is truly about love there is no need to bring up the religious beliefs or association of one for attack and vigilante treatment just because of disagreement in worldview as a matter of first response. The fact that one's religious beliefs were singled out when for that matter it wasn't used in the debate shows that the real problem is not about the freedom to love. It lies elsewhere. Case in point. Why was there the need to bring up the chairman of ASAS's religion and church when the ASAS did not even call for Pink Dot's publicity ad to be taken down completely but rather for its subtitle "freedom to love" to be amended? And also factoring in that the call was made according to the book and not based on some hastily inserted clause or rule?