There is a lot of talk going around how Kroger is violating the First Amendment regarding their boycotting of the newspaper they say contains 'offensive speech'.
It should be noted that Kroger is not violating anyone's right to 'free speech' in the context of the First Amendment. The First has to do with the government repressing free speech.
Kroger is not the government.
Therefore, no one's rights under the First Amendment have been violated. Kroger is not guilty of violating anyone's 'Constitutional rights', because Kroger is in no position to do that.
However, Kroger is in fact repressing free speech. They are using their corporate weight and influence to do that. It just isn't a Constitutional 'issue'.
I suspect that had the author of the 'offensive speech' written poorly about Christian religions, Kroger would not have its corporate knickers in a twist.
This is another example of corporate pants-wetting over what Muslims think. Kroger probably has some reason to worry, for as we have seen time and time again, Muslims will simply burn, bomb, behead, mutilate, and otherwise murder anyone who doesn't toe their Sharian line.
Kroger would be better advised to worry more about what most of its customers think, and in telling the Muslims to put their big girl panties on and go write a letter to the editor. If they - the Muslims in question - are even capable of rational thought.
How's that for 'hate speech'?