There is merit to both sides of this story. Businesspeople should be able to cultivate whatever sort of community they like, do business with whatever sort of

There is merit to both sides of this story. Businesspeople should be able to cultivate whatever sort of community they like, do business with whatever sort of people they like, and certainly - as a matter of conscience - shouldn't be required to support causes they find objectionable. On the other hand, people should be able to publish whatever opinions they like without being ejected from what is the de facto public square. Determining appropriate limits for free speech is appropriately the job of high level legal philosophers, perhaps a statesman or two - it certainly seems above the paygrade of those who have simply competed as businessmen to create and build and maintain that public square. When we faced this issue with the civil rights movement, we decided the citizens had the better claim than the businesses. This time around we seem to be leaning the other way. I don't think the answer is obvious. I think it would take an ethereal genius to come up with an answer we all broadly considered fair and right, and all we seem to have is hacks playing for partisan advantage.