Yes, it’s the employers right. None of those are protected classes.
Barring any laws? As long as it’s legal to discriminate against people for sexual orientation then it would be their right
Do you want to bar rules again? Because the reason the league did the “stay in the locker room” option is because some states have laws about employers controlling the political expression of employees.
Not sure if the rules I mentioned above would allow that or if those rules were in place in the 50s.
Wrong but legal and I’m leaning toward keep it legal. We as customers can of course complain, boycott, etc.
But more importantly, what do you think, nelamm?
The way I read the statute given ( I am not a lawyer and have not read beyond that statute) -
Let’s say that “tuy” is a racial insult against blue people.
If you are on the street, pass a blue person, and say, audibly, “Fucking tuy.” That would be against the law because the action was caused by the race of the victim.
If you are on the street and a blue person bumps you and you spill coffee on yourself and say, “Fucking tuy” that would not be hate speech because your insulting him was caused by the bump and spill, not the race.
Having special rules for gay players could get into antidiscrimination issues. If they, say, made it where they can’t mention their same sex partner, but straight people could mention theirs, that would be discrimination. Heterosexual players publicly show their heterosexuality all the time, so it would be hard to make rules that actually limit people from showing they are gay that wouldn’t be discriminaton.
Discrimination is not an issue here, as they are consistent in telling people of all religions not to say these controversial things.