Is this " progress "?

[Autumnlicious]

She made it a bigger deal than it really was when she want on to talk shows to complain about loosing, continue spreading her anti-gay vile, and said that "God made her say it", promoting the idea that she is being oppressed for holding a position that treats gays as second class citizens.

In any case, I have no problem with people who don't support gay marriage if they're equally not supportive of marriage. I disagree about marriage being a religious institution only, but that's another issue entirely that also doesn't marginalize and oppress a group of people.

I am of similar opinion on hate crimes. I don't support them for any group. However, if we do have hate crimes law, I at least want gays to be treated equally within that.

I believe the backlash Prejean got was fully expected and, in fact, justified. This was due to her touring around and constant repetition of her statement to elicit more publicity.

In the States here, you, like the Phelps family, can say nearly anything and be fully supported by the most ardent free speech advocates, but that doesn't mean the community you live in or interact with has to support it. In fact, it is their right as well to show their hatred of you and refuse to deal with you. Or do something else. The only thing that protects you is your right to say it, physically or in print (under your own auspices, for if you defer to another for publishing, they rightfully can refuse to publish it, etc). Other than that, it is open season for how others deal with you. If you don't like it, too bad - that is the wonderfulness of free speech - you may say it and we'll let you say it, but don't come crying when the rest of us hate it.

It is also well within the defined rights of an individual to demand (though there is no legally binding deal entered) for her to step down and the organization is within it's rights to terminate their (with respect to Prejean) relationship at any time under certain conditions spelt out within the document.

To me, Adrian's first statement reflects how poorly he understands (and those who agree with him) how the States or other places operate. It doesn't matter if what you say is perfectly reasonable with regards to what people think or desire of you or how others interact with you. The only thing that matters is actions done to the former (as in libel, death threats, etc). If others want your employer to terminate your contract (under many of today's contracts, it is explicitly allowed under the "fails performance expectations" or "doesn't behave according to (the company's) code of conduct), your employer may do so - as long as that is not the final "reason", where reason is what is stated for your termination legally (while this situation could be technically illegal, proving it is improbable). Of course, you may sue, as that is within your rights, and so on hence forth, but I do want to hammer it home that, in practice, only an individuals rights are protected with respect to themself. The minute they operate in a multi-actor environment, whatever happens to them is a product of what they say and do along with how others see it. The state should protect your ability to say and do things and stay away from repressing others.

Free speech is a two way street in most cases.

This is how a pragmatist sees the world. Idealists need not apply.