Personally, I agree. Legally, I don't. There's a difference on speech that merely states something and speech that incites others to action.
The government has and should have a difficult time restricting speech given the first amendment freedom of s peach. Fundamental Rights
I don't think anyone is saying, though, that the right to say bigoted things should be made
illegal, when it isn't a direct call to action. Obviously, schoolchildren are a different matter legally, and so is harassing particular individuals.
Anti-gay bullying, and bullying in general, shouldn't be tolerated in schools. This is for two important reasons though: For one, the rights a child has in a school are not the same as those of a legal adult (and for good reason, at least in cases like this), and bullying (done by individuals or groups) is a form of harassment that isn't always a necessary part of hate speech.
Wouldn't the protection of minority groups, especially women, rank pretty high on the list of compelling government interests? And isn't limiting the ability of people to spread misogynistic propaganda a tool exceptionally well tailored to that goal?
This is extremely dangerous reasoning. It's against the very foundation of "freedom of speech" to make it illegal to ever say something simply because it's considered incorrect. McCarthyism was bad enough.
Yeah, hate speech is a stupid thing, but if someone thinks that women belong in the kitchen, he has a right to do so. Stifling the opposition's right to speech is propaganda in itself, is not a good way to promote rational discourse, and would engender even more distrust in the government. If you tell a bunch of racist groups that their ideas are officially considered dangerous and illegal to speak of, you're just adding fuel to the fire.
Pseudo-edit: Ninja'd by Truean. The quote he posted says it better than I could.
Pseudo-edit 2: And by two other people as well, apparently.