Freedom of Speech: What's the Standard of Harms of Speech Rights?

Some people say that there is no, and can be no, threat to free speech from cultural mores.  That's just consequences for your speech, which is other people using their speech to criticize you, or call for your firing or institutional/associational severance, or fire you or boycott you--which in themselves are just people exercising their rights not to associate with or support people they take to be bigots.  

None of this harms your freedom of speech, because it's not the government and people exercising their own freedom in this way does not stop you from speaking.  It's not true that these things means there are things that you can't say.  You can still say them.  These are just consequences of your speech.

But let's remember that government can't actually stop you from speaking either.  They can also only change the incentives, and provide consequences to do so.  

So those who argue that such cultural mores can't threaten freedom of speech are using the wrong standard to measure whether something harms freedom of speech, since under it even government imprisonment for stating certain propositions is not a speech injury since people can still choose to speak.

Discrimination vs. Boycott in Commerce

Commerce is the collective endeavor at collective survival; for that reason, it an important question whether people should be free to not do commerce with people they don’t want to.

If you were on a desert island with 5 or so other survivors of the plane crash that stranded you there, and one of those people was an anti-gay bigot or anti-black racist/white supremacist; is it ok to refuse to collaborate in survival with him?  It’s not actively harming him, it’s just choosing not to positively help someone because of their dislike and disrespect of you. 

If it is, but discrimination is not ok against anti-gay christians in commerce today, why this difference?  Could it be only for the same reason that regulation is now ok, there are no more commons left for natural appropriation?  

On the desert island then, would it make a difference how big or small the island was, so that independent survival is possible without collaboration with others?  

Isn’t this just a restatement of the condition of active harming the person vs just opting to not positively help him: if the island is too small such there is no unappropriated land left and so individual survival is not possible, then refusing to collaborate with him is actively harming him by excluding him from access to the means of survival?  But if there is enough island that there is enough resources for him to survive on his own, then not collaborating with him is not actively harming him but just declining to actively help him.    

Freedom of Association and Contract and Discrimination and Boycotts

Nondiscrimination mandates, commerce, and religious liberty:

That church in the northwest that it was reported was being sanctioned for not marrying a gay couple

-turned out:

--it was a business, registered for profit and not as a church

and

--it married divorcees, Jews and Muslims, etc. even did a wedding for cats

--you can't treat differently based only on personal animus alone

Well why/what is the reason to all of that, above?

If there's going to be any discrimination at all, should it be on a sign so that everyone can see it as they enter, so that members of the discriminated group can avoid the experience of being rejected after spending time at the establishment/expend any opportunity costs, and so that allies can refuse to patronize them 

or is no sign better, perhaps so as to not throw one's opinion of inferiority/immorality in their face?

(This seems like an example of the internecine lefty dispute between those with a focus on rhetoric and symbolism and those with a focus on material conditions.)

So private discrimination in commerce is ok when it's in the form of a boycott.

That is even considered the case when what is being discriminated against is viewed as an immoral practice, homophobic discrimination.

So boycotting some people for their immoral behavior in boycotting homophobic discriminators is OK, but boycotting what is perceived to be immoral behavior in game marriages is not OK?

Of course I agree, but not without violating content neutrality.

So it's not exactly: "

Private/civil society action against discriminator's legitimate?

And public/government action/interference against discriminators not OK?

Actual reason for all of the civil rights act, including nondiscrimination mandates for public accommodations:

-both constitutionally and philosophically, regulating private property can be permissible because it can be justified for government interference to remedy harms caused by government interference in the first place. The effect of slavery and legal discrimination doesn't automatically stop immediately when equity is achieved in current policy; policy can have long-term effects. Hence, the federal government can legitimately interfere in the private market place of public accommodations, and "separate but equal" can never be truly equal because of persisting "badges of inferiority".

And as a means of achieving equality/non-discrimination in society, government intervention was necessary and actions of civil society could never fully achieve it.

The Becker argument, while commonly portrayed by free-market and Chicago types as an example of what made him endearing/endeared, that the free market will reward non-discrimination and punish discrimination as much as theories of racial superiority are wrong because it is arbitrarily restricting their supply of labor. It's supposed to be an example of what makes Becker cute and lovable because it demonstrates that the free market can solve discrimination, supporting

But of course this argument doesn't apply when the consumers want and will pay for that discrimination.

-Discrimination against experiences versus discrimination against persons

-only against formally/officially recognize protective classes? How do you discover a protected class?

Is withholding tax exempt status using government/public force/coercion?

I think ultimately the way to answer all these questions about what is and is not discrimination and or what is permissible of what is discussed here is: how much is your discrimination/unwillingness to transact a denial of the means of survival or a voluntary and justly free cessation/withdrawal of mutually beneficial cooperation: I don't want to harm you/stop you from working/deny you the means of survival, but I just don't want to help you get it.

add in between private discrimination at once home through open houses and open parties to public accommodations, and businesses.