I agree to a point.There are lines though, those lines shift with circumstances. There is racist homophobic language that would get be banned on bluemoon,there is language I could use on bluemoon that would get me thrown off TV or radio. What I am allowed to get away with in the pub with friends is different to what's allowed at work, even in the street there is language that can be seen by most as hateful and could get me arrested. The club have drawn a line here but depending where we are there will always be a line somewhere.
Context/circumstance is the dominant factor, throw in the constant evolution of what is deemed acceptable, and accept there is no end to this thread. At the height of the popularity of night-clubs (pre-anderton) an "artist" would get roars of laughter just by saying "fuckin' hell" or "them ****s", Manning had an endless repertoire of "paki-themed" material, gay-bashing, lesbian slurs, "thick paddies", audiences lapped it up. At the same time, national tv/radio and printed media was devoid of even mild expletives, with the odd milestone like the sex-pistols interview that lowered the bar, and later, the "water-shed" curfew when four-letter words became common "when children were in bed" (ffs).
What seems to have changed is the previously ignored "victims" of the abuse have found a voice, through enlightened politicians and celebrities, brave editorship and of course the internet, (a double-edged sword, if ever there was one !!). Evolution, not revolution.
Having witnessed many tribunals where the claim for unfair dismissal cases are summarily dismissed by the adjudicator, the employer has all the power, they use the most likely-to-win tactic, and the law gives them an open-goal, gross-industrial-misconduct being the catch-all. We will never know for sure the actual grounds for dismissal, should it ever go to a tribunal (unless they are very wealthy, highly unlikely). For all we know, Pep might fancy the gig.....