Faulty logic, unproven and unprovable ideas, including superstitions, religious dogma, stereotypes and prejudices, and any laws based on those ideas should be challenged, shouted down and repealed. The only hate is for nonsense and authoritarianism.

For some of the examples you mentioned their's a fine line between "attacking" and being polite. You oughtn't just go up to strangers and start railing on them for their beliefs because of their head wear or jewelry. Nor is there much benefit to arguing with acquaintances, friends nor family.

In regard to books, essays, blogs, video or editorials arguing against faulty and dangerous beliefs, there should be no limits except for outright calling for violence against groups or individuals. But a concerted effort by the non- or anti-religious to get the word out, such as schools teaching logic and philosophy and comparing it to the lack of evidence for religion is not violence, even if it causes children to question their parents and their own traditional beliefs.

As for homosexuals and transsexuals, that's a touchy subject. My working opinion is that these people don't affect me and so the question of whether it's a mental illness caused by abuse, genetic, or learned, is moot, and up to scientists and psychologists to figure out. Unlike religious people they aren't hurting anyone, so I'm against criticizing them for being or engaging in homosexual acts. Homosexuals freedom isn't a tool of authoritarianism like religion is.

The argument against homosexuality is that sex outside of procreation is a "sin", which is faulty on two levels, overpopulation that shows covering the earth with humans is tribal thinking not humanitarian thinking, and history that shows homosexual behavior is common and hasn't led to anything.

You also seem to be concerned with political correctness. And again there's a difference between making laws, using violence, and condemning or protesting against or arguing against faulty logic, faulty ideas and tools of authoritarianism.