The fact aside as others have pointed out that this basically a reversal of what free speech means, the other thing is, since when is an institution, merely because it has public character, required to tolerate all political viewpoints?
Clearly churches or religious institutions in many places serve the function of a public square, yet I can't walk into one and demand to debate anyone on the merits of atheism.
It's a very weird, sort of "in your face"-ism. Freedom of assembly means that said assembly can deny people entry or be exclusionary. That's just how a pluralistic society works. Also it's a very non-conservative idea, a sort of political gender quota
Clearly churches or religious institutions in many places serve the function of a public square, yet I can't walk into one and demand to debate anyone on the merits of atheism.
It's a very weird, sort of "in your face"-ism. Freedom of assembly means that said assembly can deny people entry or be exclusionary. That's just how a pluralistic society works. Also it's a very non-conservative idea, a sort of political gender quota