I know everyone has already moved upstairs, but this is getting ridiculous. I honestly don’t see what the fuss is about.

A.) The First Amendment grants all Americans freedom of speech, so let’s say a private American citizen is a Muslim and a franchisor who sympathizes with the Palestinians. One day, he decides to publicly announce his support for the BDS campaign and says he’ll begin donating money he’s earned to (legal) anti-Zionist organizations. Let’s also say he’s a fundie hard-liner and all this is predicated on his understanding of Islam. His right to do & believe these things is protected under the Constitution as long as he’s not breaking the law.

B.) The First Amendment also grants all Americans freedom of assembly, so any Jews or other people who believe the franchisor’s stance is bigoted & untenable may very well decide that they want to protest and/or boycott all the franchisee outlets in response. They are sending an economic message that not only do they not support said ideas, they but they’re also concerned about profits going to organizations that they disagree with (or which work against) their best interests. Their right to do & believe these things is equally protected under the Constitution as long as they’re not breaking the law.

One freedom doesn’t trump the other, however the tone of some of the comments on this subject gives me the impression that some people think A trumps B. It does not—the franchisor is free to speak, believe, and donate however he pleases, and the public is free to respond with protests & boycotts as they see fit.

This seems really simple to me.