Screw you...it's VERY obvious, the Sihks were good enough to die for our way of life, but screw them if they think that means we give them any kind of dipensation for their religious beliefs.
You can choose to display your own intolerance by refusing to acknowledge the the dispensations they HAVE been accorded - but that won't wash with me. They've received
plenty of acknowledgment of their right to practice their religion.... and I for one have never once advocated any less for any religious group.
But when anyone expects a certain privilege to be granted OVER AND ABOVE the rights of all others, I draw the line right there - and if you want to be ridiculous and claim that makes me intolerant of religions, then look again - because I'd make a hue and cry over
anyone ever getting differential treatment over any other person in my country - whether it's an issue of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender, I'd have the same response for
everyone.... and that *is* an equal application of rights for everyone - quite the opposite of discrimination. I'm an agnostic, straight, white female - and I've gone to the mat advocating for equal rights for religious practice (in spite of my abhorance for religion in general), sexual orientation and lifestyles, race equality, and gender equality - not just for womens' rights, but for mens' rights too. So take that label of intolerance and take a good look at who you're throwing it at.
Your stance is in fact the
epitome of discrimination... and if you take that to a place it doesn't belong and start labeling people who you KNOW are passionate advocates for equal rights for all... then imo you're the one who's got a screwed up perspective on this... and will you say the same thing when the precedent set here is used to justify according a privilege or right YOU value being awarded to one segment of the populace, but not to yourself?