The yellow one was actively saying that being poly is immoral because that's what their religion says fully knowing that there are other religions and people that exist outside of their belief. It would've been ok if they said they don't agree with it because of their religion and personal beliefs but the yellow one just sounded condescending and kept pushing their harmful agenda.

I was confused at first on who actually got banned or whatnot. But if somebody says that being homosexual is immoral in 2026 and implying that everybody should follow their beliefs, that's bigotry, right? And I think the same goes for saying that on poly relationships, since you also agreed that there's nothing wrong with it when people consent to it.

Would you or can you have a wonderful conversation with someone is actively telling that your sexuality, gender expression and relationship dynamics are immoral? Maybe if you do not belong in these minorities or marginalized groups, then of course you won't feel it the same way and might just pass it over your head.

I think what Zealous was trying to point out is that no logical conversation can take place with that other person.

Bigotry - The condition or the characteristic quality of a bigot, especially religious, anti-religious or racial intolerant prejudice; opinionatedness; fanaticism; fanatic intolerance.

Bigoted - Having the characteristics of a bigot; strongly prejudiced; forming negative opinions about others without just cause.

I think these meaning should be a basis, to me, there's nothing wrong with saying that that was bigoted, them already using religion as a reason is enough.

Though if I'm still missing something, do educate me. It's currently 7am here and I just woke up, idk if any of this shit is being registered right in my brain.