"That depends on the meaning of the word 'is'." And, I did not have "sexual relations" with that woman. Clinton didn't lie, because he privately deleted certain acts from the definition of "sexual relations." Or did he actually lie, because he intentionally mislead the nation? Non-hate speech is now being labeled hate speech.
And, moreover, I would argue that hate speech should never be restricted. In the words of free speech supporter Ted Nugent, "We need to know who the assholes are." I have a traditional ACLU view on this, not the modern liberal view. Liberals used to want to protect free speech (which means even speech by Illinois Nazis), and conservatives wanted to ban it. Now, the sides have reversed their position, and I have found myself no longer agreeing with liberals on free speech issues, but agreeing with conservatives, because I still support free speech fully.
What if, in the 1970's, ATT was taken over by conservatives, and ATT decide to cut off phone service to liberals (or socialists or communists) because they didn't want them speaking their dangerous ideas with each other and to other people? Would that have been healthy for society, just because a private company did it instead of the government? I'm curious as to your answer. I'm not making a first amendment argument here. I'm asking what you think is best for society outside of the first amendment (outside of action by the government)?
What if a private business wants to decline to enter into a business arrangement to bake and deliver a cake for a gay wedding? Is that ok, because they are a private business?