Just to be clear, I have zero tolerance in regards to racism as well. But, unlike you, I also have zero tolerance against the blatant disregard for people's constitutional rights.
Yes, you are correct, the FBI can potentially tap into a suspects home - but only after A) a crime has been committed (e.g., a physical act), and B) the necessary probable cause has been produced. Not sure how this has anything to do with limiting free speech.
As for your second example - I'm not sure what this has to do about the first amendment. If you are arguing that some laws seem somewhat arbitrary, I agree with that point. But either way, this has nothing to do with our discussion because eating a cow, or eating a dog for that matter, is a physical act and, as a point of commerce, something the government can and does regulate all the time.
And per your last point, realize that a senator can still say those words and it would not land them in jail. The difference is that, today, such conduct is no longer considered socially acceptable and therefore said Senator would likely lose their re-election. This is perfectly OK. In fact, it is the basic example of how the free market/marketplace of ideas works. Such influences can be (and are) in play regarding racist ideas as well. But this is completely and utterly different from passing a law saying a senator cannot say those words - that would be a blatant disregard for his or her 1st amendment rights and an attack on our democracy.