I've gone through the comments in post 89. No one suggested that Ford didn't have the legal right to do what they did. (The union employee came the closest, but even he didn't get there.) Most responded by either pointing out the abstract consequences, the direct consequences, or historical reality about the company.
Accepting that a property owner has a legal right to do something is not the same as supporting ownership rights. Criticizing a decision by citing reasons why it would be ineffective or even detrimental to its goal is one thing, but the posts I referenced aren't doing that.
What they are doing instead is expressing disdain over the exercise of ownership rights to do something that the critic finds personally offensive in an ideological sense. In other words, they profess to support ownership rights only as long as that owner does what they want.