I'm still stuck on the concept of "hate speech restrictions".
From what I understand there is a distinction between "hate crimes" and "hate speech", which any action that leans towards speech as being protected (however much you may disagree with it).
He has the right to wear whatever shirt he wants, wherever he wants from a federal standpoint. It doesn't protect him from the criticism he receives from the public at large, nor does it stop any private business from enacting their own rules on their own property.
Really it's the public's responsibility to make sure he knows that the shirt (and by extension him) are not welcome, but extending "hate speech restrctions?" Nah.
From what I understand there is a distinction between "hate crimes" and "hate speech", which any action that leans towards speech as being protected (however much you may disagree with it).
He has the right to wear whatever shirt he wants, wherever he wants from a federal standpoint. It doesn't protect him from the criticism he receives from the public at large, nor does it stop any private business from enacting their own rules on their own property.
Really it's the public's responsibility to make sure he knows that the shirt (and by extension him) are not welcome, but extending "hate speech restrctions?" Nah.