The baker has the right because he's the owner and made the rules.

The players do not, because they aren't the owners, and the owners, who make the rules, now say no. If their employer, the NFL said yes, they could take a knee.

Roseanne made statements, her employer didn't like it, felt it reflected bad on them and their brand, and she's gone.

"Freedom of speech" simply means the government cannot infringe on your speech or prosecute you for your speech. Nothing more.

In these cases, the employer decides if political statements can be made on his or her time or at all, by their employee. It's their time. It's their brand.

Using a United State constitutional separation. These arguments are not free speech issue inside the First Amendment. They are both about filing grievance and the abilities of public assembly.

Free speech is a First Amendment issue and is right as described as self-evident truth, set in writing by the Republic of the United States of America. The football play is in fact not practicing free-speech, presuming this is about the player who took a knee during the pledge he is filing grievance using the media attention he receives from working for the NFL. All this while refusing any allegiance to the very republic which is holding the United States constitutional principle that has been amendment to include the first Amendment as one of its many flags.

The pledge does not mention the Republics Constitution by name. Only that the United States of America as a representation of the flag. It then goes on to include the republic that has used the United States Constitution to create the many United States by truth that can be held as self-evident.

It is not clear the baker understands constitutional right form constitutional wrong. So the baker may rely on moral precedent.

As we look at complicated public relationships and likely-hood by private contracts, and legal precedent. The legal state that is united between couples and political governing is citizens of a country. As this creation is limited in nature to men and woman acting as a united couple there is a legal burden transferred to the public that is shared by political policy. Free means the principle of state in debate must have no cost, and must also have no self-value. Marriage has a self-value that is not enforced by the baker.

Even if a jury were to rule that Free speech is expressed by a couple of equal gender while it plagiarized the likely-hood of marriage. The lack of any self-value does not create immunity to the complex laws of perjury that are being broken. As the complex perjury is associated to the way in which witnesses are directed, as the baker in fact is included as witness and no legal separation process is conducted by the act if commerce. There are some self-evident truths that can be described as inalienable.

Paying to bribe a witness, is in basic principle paying to bribe a witness. A consummation of an equal gender relationship does not need to take place before witness, ever. The source of addition citizens of a country will come from other licensed sources of that country on all accounts.

Hope this helps I tried to explain it as simply as possible.