[MileHi]

He was merely exercising his First Amendment right to express an opinion Chick-Fil-A disagrees with, wasn't he?

No. It was a verbal assault on some he perceived could not fight back.

[LearsFool]

No. It was a verbal assault on some he perceived could not fight back.

You say "po-tay-to", he says "po-tah-to".

Hiding behind the First Amendment cuts both ways. Why? Because freedom is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

No. It was a verbal assault on some he perceived could not fight back.

Where does the First Amendment end, and "verbal assault" begin? This Smith guy was clearly on the protected speech end of things - he did not physically threaten, violate any laws, etc.

Yes, he was a complete a**hole, and yes, he deserved to be fired and ridiculed. But let's not confuse things - under the First Amendment, he had every legal right to be a complete a**hole (just like his employer had every legal right to fire him for doing so).

[catman67]

And, from what I understand, his company chose to exercise its right of Freedom of Association!