The exact same arguments can be used in this situation as those used concerning the “9/11 Mosque.”
He has a legal right to do this under the 1st Amendment.
However, it is in poor taste and disrespectful and should not be done.
Exactly the same as the mosque. Opposing his actions does not make anyone “intolerant” or “bigoted.”
“Poor taste”? Yes I believe it is.
“Disrespectful”? Yes, it may be.
“Should not be done”? No. His rights supersede taste and respectability.
Rights should NEVER be contingent on offensiveness.
To subject himself to the whims of an ever changing societal perception of man made ideals of correct behavior, subjugates his written, unyielding constitutional rights to what ever PC flavor happens to be popular at any given time. To just let it go as distasteful or disrespectful, does indeed place asterisk’s beside each right. I am not sure there are any in the Constitution, nor, based on how flippant man’s idea of right and wrong is, do I feel there should be.