I had to ask for clarification on this question, I'm not sure if it was you that I spoke to or someone else. But I was referred to the case of Michael Overd for example. Michael is a street preacher in Taunton that was arrested for causing offence with his preaching and convicted last week. Now this is a really tricky one to test the limits of our freedoms. The thing seems to centre on the use of Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 13, which I'm going to quote in full, from the King James Version so you know exactly what I'm talking about.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Now I think he only used the first half of that, not the second, though it's very hard to find out, but the difference is important. There is no such thing as a right not be offended. If I want to go into the street and use the first half to say that you're detestable, you're an abomination, that's up to me. That's my freedom of speech. But if I'm on the street and used the second half, if I suggest to people that you should be killed because of your sexuality, then that has crossed the legal line into hate speech, which we do put limits on. This was a quotation from the Bible, so it's more difficult still, and that's where a Judge would have to decide on the intent.
But, in my view, it's hard to see that suggesting that people are abominations and should be put to death for their sexuality comes from a position of love, as the question states. Also, I'm not sure it comes from simply expressing their faith, I think there are probably simpler ways. Defending freedom of speech in essential, it's one of our basic human rights. The test of those human rights is whether we apply them equally to people we don't like, as to those we do. From what I've read of him, I don't like Michael Overd, not one bit. But as long as he's not threatening to kill people, then his freedom to speak must be defended.