It's a question of jurisdiction, actually. For example, section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which would have permitted incursions on speech where that speech was hateful, was repealed in 2015 as a result of political pressure. That was as a result of many Canadians getting together, speaking loudly, and pressuring legislators to do something they wanted them to do.
If there is a law that applies to speech, and if there's an analogous case similar to the Whatcott case, dealing with other scripture, I would expect the same principles to be applied.