She played this character for a number of years from my understanding. It's not like it was some new gig she refused. She even tried to negotiate with the producers so she could be friendly toward the gay character, she simply wouldn't utter the line that God created gays to be gay and was fired.
So let me get this straight, as long as you aren't Congress (since they are the only ones explicitly mentioned by the first amendment) then in your opinion you can restrict freedom of speech to your hearts' content?
The U.S. Constitution does not apply to a private institution. If you come into my business, I can kick you out for any reason -- maybe I think your shirt is ugly. Is that reasonable? No. But it has nothing to do with Free Speech. Maybe little-f/little-s free speech, sure. But your assertion was:
Your Church opposes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legalized in your state. So your church gets labeled a "hate" group and shut down. Maybe you think you're God and don't care about the Church but I'd say that negatively affects the people who attend and work at that Church.You're trying to prove a slippery slope about government enforcement against "hate groups" by taking a
private economic decision. If you are arguing that a cultural shift (which shows up through private cost-benefits decisions like that) will happen and the government will inevitably start to behave the way you're arguing, you need to prove that. Because it didn't happen with race, so why sexual orientation?
Otherwise, it's like someone taking an example of an individual church denying membership to a sexually active gay person on the grounds of their lifestyle choice...would you use that to argue a slippery slope toward the prohibition of gayness? What you're doing now makes no more sense than that.
(I do appreciate your civility, though, like I said you don't deserve to be treated as a troll. But please don't take "this forum has a lot of Democrats" as an excuse to dismiss moral arguments. For my part, I'm no wild-eyed Obama fan.
)
