While I do not doubt that some of the discussions were legitimate political speech, it sounds like there was a lot more going on.
However, in the same vein, if you want to host said Nazi pride event and need to find private companies and businesses to provide catering and other services, they all legally have the right to tell you to fuck off, and if that means you can't find ANY services, then that's too bad for you, stop being such an insufferable prick.
The right of assembly is essentially codifying "if you are a cunt then nobody will want to deal with you" into law. We've had to work around it in some cases, because sometimes people treat things like skin color and gender and other horrible things as a proxy for "cunt", but explicitly exclusionary and violent ideology is not a protected class.
Substitute 'Nazi pride' (whatever the hell that actually means) with 'being black' and tell me you still support this. Go ahead. I dare you. Public accommodation laws exist for precisely this reason, and I'm not at all convinced they shouldn't be applied more broadly.
> The right of assembly is essentially codifying "if you are a cunt then nobody will want to deal with you" into law.
If you're not being a cunt to at least somebody then you're probably not saying or doing anything of consequence. Once upon a time it was legal to own other human beings until someone started being a cunt about it. Sometimes that's exactly what the doctor ordered.
> explicitly exclusionary and violent ideology is not a protected class
So, just to be clear: When certain parties on Twitter start spewing generalities about "all white males"... they should be deplatformed, right?
I mean, the difference is right there: one is an ideology, while the other is a state of being. Being a Nazi is a choice; being black is not. Seems pretty reasonable to me to say you can turn people away based on their convictions, but not their immutable characteristics.