I don't understand what the distinction between free speech and the 1st amendment has to do with your point (which I don't think you've explicitly stated, so I'

I don't understand what the distinction between free speech and the 1st amendment has to do with your point (which I don't think you've explicitly stated, so I'm left guessing). Both state and non-state suppression of gay advocacy would/did impede gay advocacy, just as it today impedes racist ideas, so despite the tone of your post, you don't actually disagree with that? More importantly > Traditionally free speech was a 1st amendment issue. [..] I do wish we'd return to the narrower interpretation as being a 1st amendment issue I strongly disagree. The 1st amendment shields speech from state suppression, but that is not remotely the only threat to free speech - as your example of the guys that got beaten up shows. While the line where people's reactions to speech can be labeled "against free speech" is very blurry, claiming it's only a free speech issue if the government is involved is absurd. I'm sure if Visa and MasterCard refused to do business with anyone that voiced pro-LGBT views, or if social media giants censored those views, you'd agree their ability to speak freely was being limited - the definition of a "free speech" issue.