[Pacabel]

One thing I've noticed a lot of with many of the arguments regarding this particular incident is blatant contradiction and hypocrisy. While these aren't unusual, they're particularly bad in this case.

This article, for instance, states the following: "Indeed, any right withheld from any group of people must be rallied against."

Yet the author makes that very claim in an article that basically suggests that people should not have the right to oppose homosexuality or gay marriage, and should not have the right merely to express such beliefs. He should be rallying against his own article and his own stance, in fact.

I'm not suggesting that he or anyone else should be denied the right to hold or to express contradictory or hypocritical viewpoints, of course. But the use of such arguments does make it hard to take one seriously, regardless of what the issue at hand is, and regardless of the position being expressed.

[jknupp]

Notice I never said "He should never be allowed to state his opinion." He's free to do so, and did. And in doing so made a public statement about his views. If you believe basic human rights should be denied to a group of individuals, I have an issue with that.

[natch]

People are entitled to their views. But some views are not conducive to good leadership.

[dalke]

And expressing views may have social consequences. There is no general right which requires others to ignore or disregard speech they don't like.

(There are limited rights, like workplace laws protecting people who express views about unsafe working conditions or racial discrimination in the workplace from retaliatory action by their employers. This should not be confused with a general right that applies to everyone and all speech.)