Disagreement is Disrespect
Consider these dueling bumper stickers:
Here religious conservatives do seem unfairly maligned: seeing a behavior as immoral is not at all the same as “hating.” These folks also rightly seethe at how they are usually portrayed in popular film and TV, and at seeing their democratic ideals violated when even local voting majorities can’t prevent their kids from being taught evolution in public schools. You can feel this resentment in the enthusiasm for Palin. (Of course since I’m not religious about God, sexual preference, or democracy, this all bothers me lots less.)
But this does seem a handy opportunity to repeat that while disagreement isn’t hate, it is disrespect. When you knowingly disagree with someone you are judging them to be less rational than you, at least on that topic. (Judging them less informed or experienced by itself can’t create disagreement.) It might be only a minor disrespect, if you think this disagreement suggests little about whether you’d disagree with them elsewhere. But disagreement is disrespect, nonetheless.
Added: Wikipedia says hate speech is:
Speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. [emphasis added]
How exactly do you disagree with someone’s moral views without degrading them? Can you really say pedophelia is disgusting without degrading pedophiles?
Religious conservatives are absolutely not "unfairly maligned" as you suggest and your own post gives the rebuttal in the very definition of Hate Speech where you gloss over the other pieces of the definition which do not adhere to your narrow application to those holding moral views -- something akin to the like-minded claims re: "the war on Christmas". With mounting legislation designed to single out persons of the LGBT community, encompassing marriage; adoption; market access; job protection; especially noting the extreme laws of policing public restrooms, the motives are NOT simply moral views of persons "unfairly maligned", but are, by definition, hate -- Hate Speech: "speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation." The country continues to grow in demand that all persons be treated with equal treatment and attempts at silencing even the discussion of it will not stop legal enforcement. BTW--teaching established scientific facts in public schools is not a threat to democracy--facts are facts whether one believes them or not. The sun will appear again tomorrow without the need for a blood sacrifice.
No, disagreeing with someone is not disrespect. We do not all agree, but that does not mean I do not respect other people and their beliefs and opinions. If you think something tastes good and I don't that does not mean I disrespect you, or that you disrespect me. It simply means we do not agree.That is the same for whatever people believe. People can be disrespectful in how they act during a disagreement, but simply not agreeing is just that.