Chick-fil-A in trouble?

Lately, Chick-Fil-A has come under fire in a political and social backlash toward the chain. In fact, Mayor Thomas Menino is prohibiting the chain to locate one of their franchises in Boston. The CEO of the mega chain expressed his disbelief in the equality and rights of same sex marriage. In fact, he would most likely prefer if same sex marriage was prohibited. This is interesting because the CEO of the chain has the perfect right to the freedom of speech for what he believes in and/or thinks. Furthermore, since he believes in this and has the right to without government suppression there are moat certainly consequences. The freedom of speech does not protect one from the freedom of speech with negativity on the part of others who backlashed against him. In this sense, does the mayor have the right to vocalize that a chain will not be added in Boston now?
1

This is a complicated fine line because though it is vocalizing that the chain can not be in Boston, it is also a physical line to revoke the presence of a chain. But, since the mayor's approval is needed this case shows the different complexities of the first amendment. Here, it is the idea that one's first amendment may end up being as a result of another and may also be more effective. Moreover, it shows that the freedom of speech can come with consequences as it did in this case. Ultimately because the CEO voiced his opinions he has damaged the chain's growth and a public opinion toward it. This story demonstrates a deep meaning: if the first amendment can be used and is applicable to one's beliefs then perhaps sometimes it is necessary to hinder those opinions and keep those thoughts to ones self. This way, there is no retribution and one can believe in what they want to believe in without consequences/major real-world backlash.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/randazza-first-amendment/