One's about minorities possessing rights, and the other is the right to possess minorities.

Though this does open up an interesting topic.

What defines something that offends?
Some things greatly offend some people while not bothering another group of people. Take the whole 'internet vs 4chan' stance on offensive material. While a specific group of individuals (/b/, for example) would not get bothered by something considered possibly offensive, in this instance, used of derogatory terms (being called a faggot), another group of people (those who do not frequent /b/) would become greatly offended. Does this lead the 'offensiveness' of certain content to be driven on a case by case basis between individual people, meaning that someone cannot dismiss another person's claims? Or is it by majority that the largest consensus decides whether something will be considered offensive?

Is the ridicule directed at the opinion of Johnson caused by those people not having the same viewpoint as him, or is it that his stance stands outside of the majority?