Margaret's Court

Margaret Court won 24 grand slam titles, vs Serena Williams 23 and Steffi Graf 22.  

However tennis records are less important than respecting others. Margaret Court has once again renewed her attacks on the LGBT community. This isn't something she's being doing just recently, it's been going on for years.

It's time to change the name of the stadium so that tennis stands with the LGBT community.

The Australian Open has plenty of time to make the decision. This is going to an issue with sponsors considering not backing the tournament, players refusing to play on that particular court, and so on. Either the AO takes the decision in advance of the next tournament or things could really get interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Court_Arena
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Court#Post_tennis_career_and_religious_views

I don't agree with what Court says, but whilst the wider tennis world is raising this issue, don't you think players and the Tours (WTA/ATP) should also look at the appropriateness of endorsing tournaments in officially homophobic countries where LGBT sex is not only discriminated against officially and unashamedly, but is also a crime which attracts heavy punishment, such as the Gulf nations?  Court's homophobia is religiously inspired just like the officially endorsed and enforced homophobia in such countries.

By all means kick the soft target that is Court - and I can well understand why players would not want to play in an arena bearing her name. But to do that and continue to take greenbacks from officially and unashamedly homophobic countries leaves a taste in my mouth.  In so saying I appreciate that the Aus Open is a different body to the tours and the players, but the Aus Open is responding in part to the views as expressed by the wider tennis world, including some players like Andy Murray, the current Dubai Champion. I don't criticise Andy or anyone else for making the point about Court, but I think that it would also be fair to ask them about continued support for the Gulf nation tournaments.

Fair enough. Perhaps you are right to raise this, and perhaps it even amounts to hypocrisy, but as you seem to understand, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong to suggest a name change to the court.

One to reason to focus on Maragaret Court is because this one is winnable.

In any case, I just want to show my support for the LGBT community when they are under attack.

In the latest news,
http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/40116513
Navratilova believes the Margaret Court Arena should be renamed after Evonne Goolagong, a 14-time Grand Slam winner of Australian Aboriginal descent.

It will be interesting to see whether this story runs and runs throughout the French Open and Wimbledon, with other players jumping on to the bandwagon, or whether it dies down.

With regards to a tournament like Dubai, maybe it should be boycotted, although I don't feel I know enough to comment for certain.

These are two different issues though as I see it. Margaret Court has openly presented herself as being homophobic with her comments upsetting a lot of tennis pros past and present and they want a stadium named after her to be renamed. Some talking about boycotting the court named after her (not the tournament). As for 'support' for Gulf nation tournaments well lets not all presume that everything organised and held in that region is involved in nefarious activities as that is, at present, unproven whereas Court's comments are plain to see.

Let's take it a step further and ban Christianity - Margaret Court is simply espousing as a Christian Minister a traditional Christian view of sexual relationships.  Those are her views. It doesn't stop her being compassionate to gays and lesbians in person - she just doesn't think it is correct according to her traditional faith.   There are also other religions with the same views as indicated by barrystar.

In summary let's all decide to be upset with Christianity rather than Margaret Court - who is simply following traditional Christianity as a Christian minister.

No name Bertie wrote:Let's take it a step further and ban Christianity - Margaret Court is simply espousing as a Christian Minister a traditional Christian view of sexual relationships.  Those are her views.  It doesn't stop her being compassionate to gays and lesbians in person - she just doesn't think it is correct according to her traditional faith.   There are also other religions with the same views as indicated by barrystar.

In summary let's all decide to be upset with Christianity rather than Margaret Court - who is simply following traditional Christianity as a Christian minister.

I see what you are saying but there have been hundreds of current and ex tennis pros who are/were deeply religious but have the common sense to not make offensive statements. I don't have a problem with people being religious but when they start preaching it is taking it too far in my opinion.

The Arsenal Football stadium is called the Emirates Stadium. The United Arab Emirates have the death penalty for homosexual acts. Maybe we should look around Australia to see what buildings and stadia and institutes are named after gulf oil money.

No name Bertie wrote:The Arsenal Football stadium is called the Emirates Stadium.  The United Arab Emirates have the death penalty for homosexual acts.  Maybe we should look around Australia to see what buildings and stadia and institutes are named after gulf oil money.

Well no unless evidence is out there that owners of the Emirates Airlines make the laws in that country or actively support the law. They are a mere company that we don't know what their beliefs are whereas Court has revealed what her beliefs are.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:The Arsenal Football stadium is called the Emirates Stadium.  The United Arab Emirates have the death penalty for homosexual acts.  Maybe we should look around Australia to see what buildings and stadia and institutes are named after gulf oil money.

Well no unless evidence is out there that owners of the Emirates Airlines make the laws in that country or actively support the law. They are a mere company that we don't know what their beliefs are whereas Court has revealed what her beliefs are.

Emirates Airlines is owned by the Government of Dubai which indeed do make up the law. Dubai doesn't have the death penalty for homosexuality - but it is banned and the penalty is a custodial sentence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates#Dubai

And we can agree to disagree over Margaret Court who in my opinion is being used as a scapegoat for traditional Christian values on sexual relationships.  It forms part of the revisionist history that is sweeping through western culture for the purposes of being politically correct etc.

No name Bertie wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:The Arsenal Football stadium is called the Emirates Stadium.  The United Arab Emirates have the death penalty for homosexual acts.  Maybe we should look around Australia to see what buildings and stadia and institutes are named after gulf oil money.

Well no unless evidence is out there that owners of the Emirates Airlines make the laws in that country or actively support the law. They are a mere company that we don't know what their beliefs are whereas Court has revealed what her beliefs are.

Emirates Airlines is owned by the Government of Dubai which indeed do make up the law.  Dubai doesn't have the death penalty for homosexuality - but it is banned and the penalty is a custodial sentence.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates#Dubai

And we can agree to disagree over Margaret Court who in my opinion is being used as a scapegoat for traditional Christian values on sexual relationships.  It forms part of the revisionist history that is sweeping through western culture for the purposes of being politically correct etc.

First point then fair enough but that is therefore something for the Tennis Federations to decide on then is it not?

On the second point I am from a non-pc age myself but that age has gone now. Court is a leading figure in women's tennis and needs to act accordingly which means not lashing out at people's sexual preferences. Look at how Nastase was slapped down recently for similar derogatory comments - it is just not5 the done thing to do when you are in a lofty position in global sport.

CaledonianCraig wrote: ... On the second point I am from a non-pc age myself but that age has gone now. Court is a leading figure in women's tennis and needs to act accordingly which means not lashing out at people's sexual preferences. Look at how Nastase was slapped down recently for similar derogatory comments - it is just not5 the done thing to do when you are in a lofty position in global sport.

No.  Margaret Court is a Christian Minister - she holds no current lofty position in global sport.  It is only her past achievements in tennis that is the cause of her legacy in the sport of tennis - the most successful sportsperson (male or female) in the history of tennis.

No name Bertie wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: ... On the second point I am from a non-pc age myself but that age has gone now. Court is a leading figure in women's tennis and needs to act accordingly which means not lashing out at people's sexual preferences. Look at how Nastase was slapped down recently for similar derogatory comments - it is just not5 the done thing to do when you are in a lofty position in global sport.

No.  Margaret Court is a Christian Minister - she holds no current lofty position in global sport.  It is only her past achievements in tennis that is the cause of her legacy in the sport of tennis - the most successful sportsperson (male or female) in the history of tennis.

Well she does still hold a position where she is looked up to considering her achievements and as I said look at how Nastase has been slapped down for his comments which have caused offence. Banned from several tournaments already.

Interesting ethical dilemma. Do we separate Court the tennis player from Court the person?
The tennis player clearly deserves a court named after her. However, the person holds views that many, including myself, find unpalatable at best (and if they are Christian, then I don't think those particular fundamentalist Christian views have any place in a modern society - imho).

It's good that so many are vocally opposing her. Overall, I think that having a court named after you, much like an OBE or other such recognition, is an honour that needs to be deserved in a wider context, and I no longer think Court deserves that honour.

Margaret Court the tennis player is an integral part of the history of tennis - but that is in the past. Fine condemn Margaret Court the Christian Minister, condemn those adhering to traditional Christianity, close them down. In the meantime the tennis of today has to protect itself - all tennis players hoping to turn professional should sign a pledge of beliefs - that includes full support of sexual proclivities, women's rights, LGQT rights etc. If they are found to transgress those standards they should be stripped of all titles and prize monies. This should be extended to all public employers - including those wishing to stand for public office. We need a consistent policy - no scapegoating. IMO.

She's been a well known critic of LBGT for atleast 15 years and even before it was re-named after her so bit odd to be complaining now. They've tried to get it renamed before and failed so id be surprised if was changed now.

It was named after her achievements in Tennis and that's all that it should be judged upon imo.

Not because of what kind of person she is or her opinions which you expect being a Christian minister not that i agree with them. Bringing peoples (past & present) religious beliefs into the game is going to set a dangerous precedent.

I wonder if they ever decide to name an arena after Lleyton Hewitt people will complain over his racist remarks.

Fernando wrote:She's been a well known critic of LBGT for atleast 15 years and even before it was re-named after her so bit odd to be complaining now. They've tried to get it renamed before and failed so id be surprised if was changed now.

It was named after her achievements in Tennis and that's all that it should be judged upon imo.  

Not because of what kind of person she is or her opinions which you expect being a Christian minister not that i agree with them. Bringing peoples (past & present) religious beliefs into the game is going to set a dangerous precedent.

I wonder if they ever decide to name an arena after Lleyton Hewitt people will complain over his racist remarks.

Really?

I am not fully aware of all the details but based on what I know I would be more concerned if the AO renamed their courts than if they did not.  It strikes me that the principle that people should be free to hold and express their opinions is what matters most, and that trying to penalize people for the "wrong" sort of opinions is inappropriate, to put it mildly.

That said, I would add a couple of caveats:

First, as I said I am not aware of all the details.  I am mostly assuming that Court's opinions come down to something along the lines of "gay sex is wrong and marriage can only be between a man of a woman", but that she does not, e.g., advocate violence or something of the sort.

Second, while I think renaming the courts would be clearly the wrong choice, obviously AO can do as they please - it is their right to make that choice.

If we want to go serious on all this we should begin to talk about the founding of the modern state of Australia - the genocide of the aborigines (in terms of killing, ethnic cleansing of areas, and destruction of their culture) and the marginalisation of the survivors in a European clone culture. We could look at the various place names and invariably find they were named after people with blood on their hands.

Yes, it is the right of the AO to name their stadiums after who they want. But it's also the right of the players to complain about and boycott the AO if they choose to do so. Rights work both ways.

I'm not gay, so I'm not personally offended, but Court should be more careful with what she says. People have plenty of thoughts that they shouldn't blurt out in public. And going back a few years, there was a time that many thought that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to marry. No doubt if we were back in those days some would be defending that type of thinking, complaining that people were too PC, even though they would be clearly very wrong.

No name Bertie wrote:Margaret Court the tennis player is an integral part of the history of tennis - but that is in the past.  Fine condemn Margaret Court the Christian Minister, condemn those adhering to traditional Christianity, close them down.  In the meantime the tennis of today has to protect itself - all tennis players hoping to turn professional should sign a pledge of beliefs - that includes full support of sexual proclivities, women's rights, LGQT rights etc.  If they are found to transgress those standards they should be stripped of all titles and prize monies.  This should be extended to all public employers - including those wishing to stand for public office.  We need a consistent policy - no scapegoating.  IMO.

Do you really think that preventing people doing certain jobs because of their religious beliefs equates to withdrawing an honour because of someone's religious beliefs? No-one is calling for Court to be stripped of her titles. She is entitled to her views and to express those views, but offending large numbers of people can rightly have consequences.

I actually take a very dim view of Martina Navratilova's stance in trying to get the stadium renamed. After all, why should Court's views on same sex marriage or even lesbians mean she has to lose her honour given her lofty standing within the game? Lots of people are against same sex marriage. Navratilova gets the freedom to marry who she chooses yet she denies others the freedom to express their opposition to it. Navratilova is a hypocrite and an equality Nazi.

"One to reason to focus on Maragaret Court is because this one is winnable"

Ah yes and here is an example of the cowardice of the PC brigade in action. No doubt renaming a court because of that person's seemingly outmoded opinions send the correct message whilst we'll all brush under the carpet the fact that the sport makes billions in countries where the act of homosexuality is banned. Guess you're all geed up ready to vote for Jeremy Corbyn on June 8th!

In my view naming the stadium after Margaret Court is not "honouring" Margaret Court the person.  As a Christian Minister I am sure she doesn't give two hoots about this "honour".  It is the Australian Open, Australia and tennis that is being honoured by naming its stadia after its megastars of the past.  It is a form of institutional self honouring and self promotion - a canonisation of its own history by raising notable figures of its past to iconic status.

Mochyn du wrote:I actually take a very dim view of Martina Navratilova's stance in trying to get the stadium renamed.  After all, why should Court's views on same sex marriage or even lesbians mean she has to lose her honour given her lofty standing within the game?  Lots of people are against same sex marriage.  Navratilova gets the freedom to marry who she chooses yet she denies others the freedom to express their opposition to it.  Navratilova is a hypocrite and an equality Nazi.

How so? Has she had Margaret Court silenced?

No name Bertie wrote:In my view naming the stadium after Margaret Court is not "honouring" Margaret Court the person.  As a Christian Minister I am sure she doesn't give two hoots about this "honour".  It is the Australian Open, Australia and tennis that is being honoured by naming its stadia after its megastars of the past.  It is a form of institutional self honouring and self promotion - a canonisation of its own history by raising notable figures of its past to iconic status.

Fair enough Bertie. Although she probably does quite like the idea of having a stadium named after her. Nevertheless Court has a right to her opinion as has Australia every right as a country to outlaw gay marriage. A sham US citizen who happens to be a lesbian shouldn't be able to change any of that.

Mochyn du wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:In my view naming the stadium after Margaret Court is not "honouring" Margaret Court the person.  As a Christian Minister I am sure she doesn't give two hoots about this "honour".  It is the Australian Open, Australia and tennis that is being honoured by naming its stadia after its megastars of the past.  It is a form of institutional self honouring and self promotion - a canonisation of its own history by raising notable figures of its past to iconic status.

Fair enough Bertie.  Although she probably does quite like the idea of having a stadium named after her.  Nevertheless Court has a right to her opinion as has Australia every right as a country to outlaw gay marriage.  A sham US citizen who happens to be a lesbian shouldn't be able  to change any of that.

How so? Is there a legal question-mark over her US citizenship?

Also, she can't 'change that'. She can express her opinion on the matter, and has done so. Unless you only want Court to have a right to her opinion but not Navratilova?

Oh my goodness - this is just about gay couple marriage in the Christian church - spun into something that it is not. Margaret Court says she has no problems with homosexuals having sex together - she just doesn't think the Christian Church should be marrying them.   I don't think I need to waste any more of my time on this constructed non-story.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/margaret-court-defends-herself-against-accusations-of-homophobia-and-racism-from-martina-navratilova-20170601-gwir5z.html

Here is another non-story by the BBC - with an agenda:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40118134

ps Thanks Mochyn du for drawing my attention to the fact that this story was merely about the definition of marriage in the Christian Church.

I don't agree with a potential boycott or pressure on AO
2 reasons

Firstly this doesn't punish court at all. It just punishes the AO which has done nothing wrong 

Secondly. As not nice her views may be. She hasn't acted in those feelings. It's not a crime to think bad things 

Punishing people for thinking in a "wrong" way, no matter how noble the intention, I have always found a dangerous thing

Going for sponsors is also a low blow. If you have a problem with someone, you say it to them personally

I do think it has all gotten a bit silly now.

She shouldn't have said what she did and then commented on the subject again when questioned about it which enslaved the situation further. I feel she should just apologise and those offended accept the apology and matter is forgotten.

That is what would happen in an ideal world.

Note that views about minority groups always tend to a more progressive position over time.

At one stage, homosexuality was considered completely unacceptable and even forbidden even in the West, while blacks were considered no more than slaves, and women were not allowed the right to vote. Positions derided as too PC and left wing always become the accepted position after some years. This is due to internal instincts, fear of the unknown, and resistance to change.

If you read her quotes carefully, it is not just a question about marriage within the church but always a lack of acceptance of LGBT people. She doesn’t see them as equals. This is becoming and will become an unacceptable viewpoint.

I’m not questioning the right to a freedom of speech. The question here is not whether we should accept Margaret Court but whether we should specifically elevate her to a position of very high respect in naming something after her, something suggesting her achievements in life are much more than the rest of us. In other words, should we elevate a homophobe to a position of very high standing and respect, or just leave them in a normal position? This is the question we are considering when we give an opinion about whether the court should be named after her.

I’ve got nothing against Court herself, either. This is a question about whether you stand or not with your fellow humans. LGBT people need all the help they can get in their fight for equality and this just sends out the right message.

Mochyn du wrote:"One to reason to focus on Maragaret Court is because this one is winnable"

Ah yes and here is an example of the cowardice of the PC brigade in action.  No doubt renaming a court because of that person's seemingly outmoded opinions send the correct message whilst we'll all brush under the carpet the fact that the sport makes billions in countries where the act of homosexuality is banned.  Guess you're all geed up ready to vote for Jeremy Corbyn on June 8th!

Whatever you feel about the issues of "the sport makes billions in countries where the act of homosexuality is banned" such arguments clearly have no bearing on the question about whether or not to rename the court.

Just because there are worse things doesn't act as a defense of lesser ones! It's like as if I caught someone punching one innocent child in the face for fun and you said, hang on a minute, what about someone else that murdered ten innocent children, shouldn't you be more concerned about that! Well yes I should, but that doesn't mean it's OK to punch one child in the face!

Accusations of hypocrisy like this always amount to a deflection and avoidance of the subject being raised, by people who can't win an argument by actually engaging with the subject. Watch out for this tactic, everyone. People who deflect like this are nearly always in the wrong.

Fernando wrote:She's been a well known critic of LBGT for atleast 15 years and even before it was re-named after her so bit odd to be complaining now. They've tried to get it renamed before and failed so id be surprised if was changed now.

Pointing out that there was less complaining earlier can only be a criticism of people for not complaining earlier - it cannot act against the complaint now.

What does it matter the timing of the complaint, surely what matters is whether the complaint is accurate.

Views change over time, her views in the 1990s were the same as now, but then they were considered acceptable views (or at least only slightly unacceptable to the point where you would prefer to just ignore), and now people have realised that they are not because society has progressed.

I mean think if I said this:

People have been persecuting jews for years so bit odd to be complaining now.

Women have not had the vote for centuries so bit odd to be complaining now.

Blacks have been shipped around the world for decades so bit odd to be complaining now.

Men have been raping women since the beginning of humanity so bit odd to be complaining now.

The fact that someone has done something consistently in the past and no-one has complained cannot be a reason not to complain now, as the above examples clearly show.

temporary21 wrote:Punishing people for thinking in a "wrong" way, no matter how noble the intention, I have always found a dangerous thing

+1

Henman Bill wrote:This is a question about whether you stand or not with your fellow humans. LGBT people need all the help they can get in their fight for equality and this just sends out the right message.

This strikes me as an attempt at a lofty framing of a rather dirty enterprise.  I think there are very few things in our society that are more critical than providing people with freedom to think and express themselves without the fear of consequences.  Exercises whereby various groups attempt to discredit people solely based on their opinion should be almost always discouraged.

In some sense, is Court not doing exactly what everyone should be encouraged to do?  She has her opinions and is trying to voice them in public square.  Is she doing anything illegal?  Is she interrupting gay weddings with protest messages?

What message will renaming the court send?  That yes of course we want people to be active in society and try to make the world a better place, but only if it all fits with our take on what will or will not make it better?

As I said before, it is a free world and AO can do as they please.  Similarly people can attempt to get the court renamed too.  But it strikes me that in this battle far the more honorable position is to oppose the renaming of the court.

So if Court were to simply express an opinion that, say, all Muslims were evil terrorists, she should not fear any consequences?

JuliusHMarx wrote:So if Court were to simply express an opinion that, say, all Muslims were evil terrorists, she should not fear any consequences?

Wow - where did that come from!  Time to take this thread down a deep and dark alley.   Why not just say Hitler and invoke Godwin's law.

But is this not a very apples-to-oranges comparison?

Saying that all members of a religion are terrorists is not an opinion but a verifiable nonsense, no?

My last post was in response to JHM, in case it was not clear.

I agree with SB's post at 8.20am. Well said SB.

Also whatever Court says, she has the right to say what she wants just like the others having their rights to say theirs. The MC arena was named after her for her tennis achievements, not for her religious or other stands that she may have in her life. It will be inappropriate, childish imo, to change the name of the arena, just because certain group or groups of people are unhappy with what she has said or for the value she holds in her life that may differ from theirs and even cause resentment from them.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Well said SB.

Thank you BLB.
(but I will still root against Rafa )

summerblues wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Well said SB.

Thank you BLB.
(but I will still root against Rafa )

I know you and many others will agree with me when I say that is well nigh time to change the name of Court Philippe Chatrier to Court Rafael Nadal in honour of the King of Clay. Maybe when Nadal wins his tenth title, or maybe when he retires will be the appropriate time.

Doesn't matter SB, those are separate issues. We may not agree about Rafa, but we may agree on some other issues.

Court can SAY all she wants. Just treat her like anyone who says something you don't like. Tell her to F off

Deal with her (not the ao) if she actually bullies or hurts someone

 in terms of saying something about muslims. If the reprise you're talking about is what I'm thinking. That is a gross overreaction to something having an opinion you don't like

Surely you cannot be punished for a belief ; freedom of speech is an entitlement we all have and she is no different to a n other.  What is different is each individuals reaction to it..we don't have to like it, we don't have to agree with it and we are entitled to oppose it. However it changes nothing.. you wont change her beliefs and changing the name of the Court will make no difference whatsoever it will not take away her tennis achievements and to that end she deserves the acknowledgement she received

No name Bertie wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So if Court were to simply express an opinion that, say, all Muslims were evil terrorists, she should not fear any consequences?

Wow - where did that come from!  Time to take this thread down a deep and dark alley.   Why not just say Hitler and invoke Godwin's law.

It came from this "I think there are very few things in our society that are more critical than providing people with freedom to think and express themselves without the fear of consequences"

Sorry, but expressing yourself can, and should, have consequences. It can even happen on this forum.

I think someone should remind Donald Trump of that

Good discussion.

Renaming the court is not about taking away freedom of speech, I am not suggesting she be forbidden from speaking. I am not sure it really counts as a "punishment" (temp), it's not like I am suggesting fining her or forcing her to do community service or putting her in jail.

The question is not whether or not she should have freedom of speech, but whether or not we should continue to award her a particularly special honour.

The honour was awarded years ago for what she DID as a Tennis Player to take that away from her now because of the person she has now become .. is in my view petty .. publicly disapprove of her, her beliefs, and vocal expressions for the person she is now fine..but she was not voicing those beliefs when she was a tennis player.. a moot point but significant imv

JuliusHMarx wrote:So if Court were to simply express an opinion that, say, all Muslims were evil terrorists, she should not fear any consequences?

Perhaps what he is trying to say here is: are you defending all freedom of speech, or are you specifically defending freedom of speech up to a point. I mean, what if Court had said (just hypothetically, to be clear, since she actually said no such thing) "black children are the most vile thing on this Earth, I hate them all and it would be better if they were dead. Black people should not breed." Would you still disagree with me about removing her name from the court, or does it come down to a question of degree?

What is she were specifically saying "Muslim children should all be raped and killed to teach their parents a lesson." Would some of you STILL want to keep her name on the court?

Of course at some point you could get out of this by saying, "ah, that's incitement to violence, that's different." However just saying something more benign like "I don't personally agree with gay marriage" can effectively, if considered an acceptable comment, lead to an atmosphere where violence thrives. I mean look at this comment from Putin: "We have no ban on the non-traditional forms of sexual intercourse among people. We have the ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia. I want to stress this: propaganda among minors. These are two absolutely different things: a ban on certain relations or the propaganda of such relations." Very easy to defend this comment under freedom of speech. And yes this kind of comment from a leader effectively permits others in the country to commit terrible abuse against gays on a regular basis.

I would say taking the name away from the court would be a step too far.

However, someone should be having a word in her ear and encourage her to make a public apology apologising if she upset a group of people of which there are plenty in tennis. Those offended by her comments should be big enough to accept that and move on.