> The majority of Republicans want businesses to have the right to refuse gays[5], so it seems logical that they (and Will Hurd) would support the right to refuse to include someone based on ideology.

This glosses over some important nuance on the "religious freedom" side of that issue. In the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, for example, they didn't discriminate against gay people, per se - they served gay customers. They refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding specifically.

On the religious freedom side of the argument, they maintain that its a kind of compelled speech to require the baker to make a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. I'm not saying I buy it completely, but its an earnest argument advanced in good faith - and shouldn't be reduced to bigotry/prejudice.

So because people dosent like his peronal opnions, means his techinicals one are no good?

Probably not, but Black Hat (and any other brand) doesn't choose people only for merit. They also consider the effect on their brand.

"Why is this controversial?"

Because disinviting is stupid and getting way too common now. This is like the 5th case of this I've seen within the past year. If they is going to be a heckler's veto then get the heckler's permission before inviting.

It is controversial because I want to live in a country where I am not ostracized for having unpopular opinions.

As a member of Congress, he doesn’t merely have unpopular opinions, he’s trying to impose them on the rest of us.

This could be said of both sides. We elect politicians to pass laws to impose opinions and values. While you may disagree with those, that doesn't make the opinion of the large portion of the population which agrees with him invalid. His opinions may be unpopular among the people who attend Black Hat, but not so much so among the rest of Americans. Congressman Hurd is also well-known for supporting cybersecurity initiatives in government, something we need more of.

If you disagree with Mr. Hurd on many issues, but agree with him on cybersecurity, why can't you just agree with him there and let him speak? The politicians with whom I agree only in part are without end.

Yes, this is why we elect representatives. So what? My point is that he doesn’t merely have opinions. The fact that this is true of all other legislators just reinforces my point.

Let's be honest. Congress doesn't really try to do much these days. They're glorified pundits lately.

"Uninvited to speak at a major conference" != "ostracized"

People with Hurd's views are welcomed in most places in the country. Despite having minority viewpoints, they form the majority of elected officials due to the way districts are drawn. They're CEOs, board members, and prominent parts of almost every group. It's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that people like Hurd are ostracized in a general sense.

Also, having unpopular views as a lawmaker (so not just having them, but trying to enact them into law) means that a brand may not want to be associated with you.

That country doesn't, and never has, existed. All societies, no matter how free they may claim to be, have limits to what they will tolerate, and all will ostracize you for opinions if you move outside that box, be it through public shame or imprisonment.

When the US was founded, one would have been ostracized for being a loyalist to the Crown. Or an atheist. Or, depending on where one lived, believing that blacks shouldn't be slaves, or being a Protestant or Catholic in the wrong neighborhood. And as societies go, the US is incredibly laissez-faire compared to elsewhere, where unpopular opinions have gotten people killed for centuries or millennia.