(CNN) -- Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, proudly proclaimed his opposition to marriage equality and drew flak from politicians and citizens nationwide, who said Cathy's position made the chain unwelcome on their turf. Some of the condemnation crossed the line, offending the First Amendment. Some did not. Many don't understand where the line is, and now a population already sharply divided over same-sex marriage is collectively less informed about the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects you from government action suppressing your right to free speech. It does not protect you from private individuals' negative reaction to your speech. As an extreme example: In my younger and more impulsive days, I punched out a guy who offended my then-girlfriend (now wife). He said he was exercising his First Amendment rights. I agreed and told him that I would defend him if the government messed with him, but the First Amendment didn't protect him from a private punch. I broke a few laws that day, but I didn't violate the First Amendment.
@highlight
Marc J. Randazza: Dustup over Chick-fil-A shows confusion over First Amendment
@highlight
After CEO's remarks on same-sex marriage, some politicians said business unwelcome
@highlight
Randazza: Politicians can't deny permits to block free speech but have other recourse
@highlight
He says pols should have and express opinions but can't give them the force of law
Therefore, those claiming that the private calls to boycott Chick-fil-A have any @placeholder implications are wrong.