Oh, I agree, with all of that. I don't think it addresses what I see as a central issue here, which is the attitudes of the enablers, as it were. Or, to be fair, it might. I don't know what changes peoples' attitudes, what causes them to internalize a new set of values. I know what can do it in my case, and that is sound logic and objectivity. But when they base their views on religion, or at least use religion as an excuse, it's a lot more difficult to reason with them, perhaps even impossible. I said "use religion as an excuse" precisely because, even in the article, there was an example of how two people had completely opposing views based on different interpretations of the same religious text, both presumably believing that their interpretation is correct, and that's precisely what makes it so difficult.
You might end up changing the behavior of the people responsible, forbidding them from taking certain action, or punishing them for inaction. You might not, if they believe firmly enough in their own views that they'll risk losing their jobs over it, for instance. But, sure, you might. That might, in the long run, change their views, or at least relegate them to the lunatic fringe, where they can fade into obscurity while blaming everything from natural disasters to man-made wars on homosexuality. But then again, you might. You could end up building support for their views instead, and suddenly you're being accused of trying to silence peoples' right to free speech.
And I realize that exactly the same things can be said of hating people or peoples' views, or hating people for their views. In essence, and I suppose this is what I've been trying to say all along, is it doesn't actually matter. I think it's natural to hate people like that, and I don't think anyone should be scolded for doing so. I feel very strongly like quoting Christopher Hitchens here, even though it feels like a cliché, and even though I know there are probably more people who disagree than agree with his methods, but .. all the same, the quote I have in mind is this: "Go love your own enemies, don't be loving mine. My enemies are the theocratic fascists. I don't love them, I want to destroy them."
I think the argument could be made that the people in this article are precisely what the quote is referring to, but replace "theocratic fascists" with any other hateful group, and it'll still apply. The bottom line is that it's not wrong or evil to react that strongly, to something that strong.
But I will say, so that there's no doubt, that there's a definite difference between destroying someone you hate - in a context like this - in a metaphorical sense, and advocating their literal destruction. I say that because I get the sense, from reading what people have written, that the argument is that hating people who hold extreme views can only escalate the situation, and might possibly ( perhaps inevitably ) lead to actual violence, unless someone backs down, changes their mind or changes tactics. I don't think that's the case.