But you say yourself that they haven't pursued legal action. So the CEO can have freedom of speech but elected officials cannot? How is it different from a guy on the street telling Chick-Fil-A that they don't want them in their town? Some cities don't want Wal-Mart in their town and protest vigorously. Some neighborhoods don't want a McDonald's there. The mayors (and BTW, I think they're wrong) made speeches. Are you saying we should deny them freedom of speech? Should the Rev. Owens not be allowed to make speeches? After all, we have to muzzle everyone if we muzzle one person.
I'm dragging this topic back to what you say your basic premise is: freedom of speech. So let's see how far this can go.
First Cathy made personal religious claims about his personal views in an interview with a Christian organization. The mayors claimed to speak for all residents ("Chick-fil -A's values are not Chicago's values..." as an example) in their respective cities via public letters, tweets, and press conferences. Can we agree this was wrong?
Actually, Chik-Fil-A's values are not exactly a secret. Chick-fil-A’s charitable arm gives millions of dollars to Focus on the Family, the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, and other organizations that agitate against gay marriage. The mayors do have a right to speak as representatives of their cities. That's part and parcel of being an elected official: representing the people who elected you. And if you do a poor job of representing them, you get voted out in the next election (see Rick Santorum). So no, I don't think it's wrong. The system works as it should. It's no more wrong than Rev. Owens representing his congregation when he speaks.
Second the same mayors were threatening a business (CFA) based on one man's views that are protected under the first amendment. Can we agree this was wrong?
Back to basics, Eagle. I read your quotes from the mayors early in this post and while I saw some strong statements, I didn't see anything that even came close to being a threat, even a veiled one. Yes, I think threatening a business is wrong, but in this case, there weren't any threats.
So back to my question, which you didn't answer. Should we deny freedom of speech to elected officials while defending that right for CEOs and ministers?