You seriously struggle with reading comprehension.
I can say anything I want to gay people and by your logic should be protected.
I have said nothing of the sort. If anything, my comment took pains to draw a line. What I have said is that I don’t think anyone has any legitimate claim to demanding the unmasking of someone who merely expresses the political view without taking action on it, subject to the limitations I stated with respect to incitement etc.
It is only when, after they find out about my beliefs (and make a point to try to use my services), the baker should be forced make the cake or decline their business that it becomes distasteful?
I would have found hate speech distasteful before that but it seems that is just me.
I specifically wrote that I considered the mere view alone distasteful in itself. Was that sentence too complicated for you? Let me quote where I did so:
“One is political speech, however distasteful.”
Also, and your logic is pretty pretzeled so I am trying to follow it to its conclusion.
It’s only “pretzeled” to you because you’ve failed to understand almost every part of what I wrote:
Because you agree with the speech, because you believe a bunch of Harvard students, who made a public statement and therefore made themselves targets of publicity, are oppressed, then their identities should be protected. But only because you believe their speech is justice. If it was unjust they should be hauled to the town square?
This entire paragraph misrepresents what I wrote so hilariously much it’s really quite impressive:
I agree with their speech, that part is right. The “because” is not.
Because the fact that I agree with their speech is irrelevant.
I don’t believe they are oppressed. I have never said or implied I think they are oppressed.
I do think the identities of anyone who engages in political speech and who does not cross over into inciting illegal acts should be free to remain anonymous, whether or not I disagree with them.
Whether or not their speech is justified is irrelevant. Case in point: I don’t think your speech is justified. I don’t think arguing it’s right to unmask and put these people at right is reasonable. I find that notion reprehensible. I still think you should be free to remain anonymous, and don’t think you should be “hauled to the town square”.
Furthermore, I consider it a central measure of whether or not a person is good by whether or not they scream for “consequences” for everyone they disagree with.