During a recent interview with National Conservative Examiner Granville Ampong, Manny Pacquiao came out against Barack Obama's support of gay marriage, saying while he supports and loves gay and lesbians, he believes Marriage is sacred between a man and a woman. 

A short time after that, Pacquiao was banned from a popular Los Angeles mall called The Grove, because the owner, Rick Caruso, didn't care for Pacquiao's "intolerant" attitude. The TV series "Extra" - which I swore was cancelled years ago - was going to film an interview at the mall (what?) with the boxer and Mario Lopez.

What a way to be tolerant: ban those who disagree with you.

I'm not going to get into my views of gay marriage here, since it's neither here nor there with this story. Of course the owner of the mall saw publicity so he jumped all over it, as did Professional Ducker Floyd Mayweather, who chimed in on Twitter. How brave of Mayweather to finally confront Pacquiao.

This whole thing has been blown out of proportion by everyone...except Manny Pacquiao. This just goes to show you that the moment you say something in front of a camera or online, it's there forever, and everyone has an opinion.

LA Weekly said that Pacquiao "thinks thousands of gay Angelenos should be 'put to death' for loving same-sex partner should alienate him to the locals." Would you be shocked to learn Pacquiao NEVER said that? Shortly after that, Pacquiao's original interviewer wrote a follow-up piece that stated that Pacquiao never said that. Ever.

Pacquiao is a deeply religious man, but now his views have gotten him in trouble. Petitions have started online for Nike to drop him as a spokesman. Interviews have - not surprisingly - been cancelled. That's fair - the market place will determine his fate when it comes to endorsements now due to his newfound "polarizing" opinions.

However, the banning bothered me immensely. How is forbidding Pacquaio from your premises any way at all tolerant? This goes back to the question of what you believe is fair: does a private business have a right to ban a person or a group of people, or is that discrimination? Personally, I think it's crap. It's the owner wanting publicity, plain and simple. This isn't even a brave move from the property owner, as gay marriage in Los Angeles is an essentially a one-sided issue. I'm sure that there are those in Los Angles who don't agree with gay marriage, however they are in a silent minority. No business will suffer from this banning, and the only thing that would be negatively affected by letting Mario Lopez ask idiotic questions to Pacquiao is the viewers IQ. Congratulations, Caruso, you're in the news - now go away.

So what do you think? Is Pacquiao out of line? Does he have the right to disagree with President Obama? Does the mall owner have a right to ban Pacquiao from his premises, or that just fighting intolerance with intolerance?