That's not how rights work.
If enough people were to agree Islam should be outlawed, and being a muslim should be a crime, that would be 100% right, fair, and just to you because its a 'democracy'?
I'm not making a moral justification for it, I do agree with you. Mob rule can be a dangerous and regressive thing.
But what I am saying is it's hard to classify a collective of people deciding they don't want to deal with someone versus actively taking away someone's rights. When the reality is something different. If someone says something offensive and a group of people decide not to want to deal with that person: I can understand that.
Rights themselves are an odd and cryptic thing, but for the most part exist because of governance and law. If the government isn't the only "cancelling" someone: I think the freedom of expression in this case is still something people are exercising. Even if I do not agree with the end goal.