We agree that most speech should not be punishable by the state.

But I think it's reasonable, if not obvious, that all actions will have reactions - or in this case consequences.

Some of those consequences are good! Some of them are bad! If you say something unpopular, people respond by showing displeasure. This is natural and normal, and also changes based upon where and when you find yourself.

Indeed, many consequences for Rowling's views have been positive! Many groups have heaped praise on her and supported her both culturally and commercially.

However, she has also faced many negative consequences. None of them have risen to the level of life destruction (despite what Rowling would at times want you to believe).

Now, do I believe that someone is allowed to "do as she pleases" if they don't cross a blurry line that takes it to the level of a crime?

Let's try to see some real world examples:

I work in restaurants. It's not illegal for people to be rude to servers and bartenders. It's not illegal for a customer to argue with every person at the bar whenever they speak.

However, they do not have the right to "continue doing as they please" at the expense of the restaurant as a whole. We are well within our rights to deny them service. In fact, all the other people should have the right to do as they please without him being annoying the whole time.

Did I destroy this person's life? Or did they face the consequences of actions they could have stopped at any time?

Certainly they have the right, and probably the inclination, to continue being horrible to every establishment they step foot in. But it would be a far cry to say they were victimized by a biased restaurant industry.

I do not believe that a person should face no consequences for denigrating people in a public forum. I also firmly believe that if a person in a position of influence demonstrates clear prejudice it is permissible for society to determine, on their own, whether or not they want to accept that prejudice to have the opportunity to influence that position (to use your case of doctors or lawyers that behave poorly - racist doctors and lawyers have a clear opportunity to use their position to do real harm, even if they never commit a crime).

It feels like you and I have a bit of a gulf between us and I'm not sure we'd be able to do much more than say "x is impermissible but y and z would be so long as we consider a, b, and c." But I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and responses.