This is precisely the reason why places should only be named after dead people, a few years after their deaths, so that all the relevant facts about the person to be honoured would be known to the people deciding.
Of course they would all have flaws, but they would be known and determined whether they were imporatant enough to merit a veto. This would save a lot of embarrasment. I'm sure Tennis Australia cannot be pleased about this turn of events, whatever their views on homosexuality and gay marriage. Notoriety and controversy are never welcome.
I am sorry to say but even naming shit after dead people won't save us from it. Specially if you consider that in the past it was much easier to hide things from the public eye. Look ... people can bring up problematic issues on the life of Ghandi, Madre Teresa and whoever. I've read a couple of articles debating if Ghandi had racial issues against african people for example. Bigotry is an issue that permeates humans. The main difference is the exposure level of today's public personas.
Yeah there are loads of pieces of shit who have been falsely idolised.
But what's this 'skeletons in the closet' thing? Margaret Court doesn't have a skeleton in a closet, she has a stupid bigoted hate-filled narrow-minded ignorant viewpoint that she's expressed as a public figure. Screw her and her achievements, who gives a fuck.
I couldn't give a shit about 'skeletons in the closet'. Skeletons in the closet is when you build up these false idols and then we get some bullshit collective shock because they did drugs, or cheated, or some stupid shit, or they liked to have a nice big turd in their mouth for pleasure... who gives a fuck about any of that? That's the sensationalised garbage that we usually get in the media, and hear complaints from various family and religious and moral authorities who would most likely AGREE with Margaret Court has said. Fuck them.
We ought to care when people say bigoted shit and they are public figures, who benefit from that status. Whether you like it or not, Margaret Court will always have this associated with her. Sticking with the name is not an active endorsement of her views, but it is complicity. That's bad.
The problem I see is: where should we draw the line?! The issue, for me, is that the tendency of seeing things in black in white. Either something is bad or good. The problem is: who decides what is good or bad. And in what terms?! Sometimes this rationale of trying to delete whatever might be associated with something that goes against what is the currently accepted way of seeing things sounds to me like trying to edit history.
A better way, IMO, is not editing history by deleting whatever might make us uncomfortable. Because who knows what this tred might lead us into. Should we open this precedent?! A better solution would be, for example, they holding some event during the AO to raise awareness against prejudice towards gay people. The problem when you start editing history is that you never know in which hands the scissor will end up with. Now you might agree with what they are deleting. But what about in the future?!