More like "I should not be fired, refused service, and kicked out of teams/events due to my speech/opinions".
Do you agree with this or not?
What I do think is that being fired should not be a death sentence; that there should be a mechanism, possibly the Government in our current society, by which one can continue living with food and a roof over one’s head even if people refuse to associate with that person. Generally speaking, I don’t think there should be an entity which can prevent you from feeding and housing yourself in the first place, though.
In that case, do you believe that it should be legal to fire/refuse service/kick out of teams and events someone due to their gender, religion, or sexual orientation?
So what should we do, given that enforcing association by law doesn’t work?
My solution is in anarchism; stop preventing me from living my own life (through a capitalist society enforced by the state, police and prisons) and I’ll stop forcing myself on yours.
People make and break friendships, or make any number of other associations, based on any factors they want, such as common interests and opinions, aligned goals and values, or just a common idea of fun and enjoyment. People have a right to decide who is welcome and who isn't, by any number of factors (modulo the interaction of protected classes with services offered to the public).
"Obnoxious" is not a protected class, nor should it be. You have a right to not be arrested for your words or opinions or expression. You are not entitled to (for instance) other people's business, patronage, custom, service, friendship, or any other kind of association. You do not have the right to control other people's reactions to you.
It doesn't matter if we're talking about a hobby group, a sports team, a software project, a company, or a social network. "I don't enjoy being around this person" is more than reason enough to stop associating with someone, let alone more critical reasons such as "I don't want to be around someone who wants to deprive me of my rights as a person" or "this person is driving other people away".
See also the Geek Social Fallacies: http://plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
And to turn that around, you're free to associate with people who feel differently, and others are free to judge you based on those associations too.
> I don't enjoy being around this person" is more than reason enough to stop associating with someone
So I should be able refuse to sell bread to someone with green hair, right? Or if they have a specific skin deformation.
Now, what if all shops in an area refuse to sell food to people with these characteristics?
> let alone more critical reasons such as "I don't want to be around someone who wants to deprive me of my rights as a person"
In that case I will be able to pretty much ban anyone I want as the vast majority of people think that certain victimless crimes should be illegal (and thus they deprive me of my rights as a person), right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
If you are looking to argue against that, feel free to do it with someone else.