Of course I would mind, and I would be vocal in my opposition to their opinions, but I would not expect, nor want, the government to stop them.  If they tried to ACT on their opinions, then that is the where the government can step in.

It is not the role of government to protect people from hurt feelings, and I would warn any people against giving the government the authority to do so or the opinion that that is their job.

Ideas are not dangerous, people are.

@The1
This man was in his own church. It wasn't like he was on the city square proclaiming gays should die. As for 95% of people thinking it should be illegal(which you clearly made up), it is understandable that they would be opposed to someone preaching something they are opposed of, but you can't have double standards because some people get their panties in a wad. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

I thought the same thing.  He is basically saying "round up all the gay people and put them in concentration camps so they can't make little gay babies"

The irony, of course, is that only straight sex can produce gay people.  If you want to get rid of homosexuality, you need to pretty much end the human species.

I do love the end where he says "imagine kissing a man" and then pauses and looks as if he is actually IS imagining it with great pleasure.

And there we have yet another American input.

Not everyone is capable of protecting themselves from hatred towards them. A minority who was unfortunate to be born in the middle of a racist community should not have to listen to everyones 'opinions' every day. They need protection from vocal discrimination.

Yes, and?

I could say the same thing about the jailing of Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, and thousands of other dissenters that were jailed for their "hate" speech too.

Additionally, if you looked through the totality of speech and dissenting opinions, free speech has done more to calm hateful and bigoted opitions than opression has. Opression makes specific viewpoints taboo, and incite people to learn more about them. Then a stupid or useless viewpoint becomes more popular and pronounced than if it was simply discussed in the open.

That is, of course, unless your in a communist or dictatorship. Then in those cases, they probably do a good job of preventing such speech - through murder and jailing. Is that the kind of nation you want?

He was still in a public location.

Yes, that number was made up and is actually higher than 95%. Why would people not oppose racist, provocative speeches on a public location? The fact that I'm even having this discussion is just unbelievable.

Bolded: That's an incredibly silly comparison. Mandela was preaching for equality, as far as I remember.

Italics: Just let me remind you that we have far, far less cases of racism here in Sweden compared to America.

You also have far, far less people of differing races in Sweden. Your country is quite xenophobic, too.

Its not a silly comparison. Limits on speech is entirely arbitrary, and that is my point. What is mandated today will be changed tomorrow, and those who get branded with "hateful" speech may be you, and not him. That is why I don't want to give the government such powers, because history shows that they do not use them for good.

Yes, it is an American input, and I make no qualms about that.  We are a country that believes (or at least used to believe) that it is better to live with the consequences of protected, sweeping liberties than the spectre of constant government intervention in our lives.  You also seem to be confusing the acceptance of someone's freedom as the acceptance of their views, which is patently false.  

Believing someone has a RIGHT to do something and believing someone SHOULD do something are two completely different things.  If my opinions were legislation, all religion would be banned, as I am an athiest and view religion as poisonous institutions that rob people of their ability to think critically, while picking their pocket and providing nothing but fear and false promises.  Fortunately, what I PERSONALLY think is right and wrong does not matter to the freedoms of those around me.  And, seeing how things could be turned the other way I would NEVER want the government to legislate what someone thinks is right and wrong.

Right and wrong is not for the government to decide.  They should simply protect people from physical harm (eg murder, theft, etc) of actions of other people they do not willingly participate in.

That minority born into a racist community has freedom to move to a non-racist community.  If you are talking about a child, then it is the role of their guardian to provide a location that is condusive of a happy lifestyle.  Their discrimination  there is not the failure of government but that of their guardians, and other thinking, moral people who do not use their own freedom of speech to rally against such situations and bring awareness to the rest of the public.

I do love the irony though, of you throwing AMERICAN around as a discriminatory term, while railing against discriminatory speech.

If God is love, then why would he ever tell you who not to love?