[PAR35]

Accepting that a property owner has a legal right to do something is not the same as supporting ownership rights.

I disagree. It appears that what you have problems with is the Constitutional right to free speech. You have a legal right to buy the house next door to me and paint it orange with purple polka dots. I would then have the right criticize you and your paint choices without being opposed to property rights.

Here, Ford has a right to restrict parking in their lot, and I have a right to point out how stupid it is as a business decision, and to translate that disdain into a purchasing decision.

[Antonello]

I disagree. It appears that what you have problems with is the Constitutional right to free speech. You have a legal right to buy the house next door to me and paint it orange with purple polka dots. I would then have the right criticize you and your paint choices without being opposed to property rights.

Here, Ford has a right to restrict parking in their lot, and I have a right to point out how stupid it is as a business decision, and to translate that disdain into a purchasing decision.

I have no problem with your Constitutional right to freely display your lack of support for owner's rights. Do you have a problem with being labeled as such as a consequence to what you express?

[Chena]

I disagree. It appears that what you have problems with is the Constitutional right to free speech. You have a legal right to buy the house next door to me and paint it orange with purple polka dots. I would then have the right criticize you and your paint choices without being opposed to property rights. Here, Ford has a right to restrict parking in their lot, and I have a right to point out how stupid it is as a business decision, and to translate that disdain into a purchasing decision.

You get the gold star! Good analogy, and spot on. :)