The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says a whole lot in few words. It establishes in writing that our government cannot and will not take away the rights to assemble, to worship freely, to petition our government and to be free from government censorship in our written and spoken words.

It does not protect anyone from criticism or social and economic consequences that follow from enacting these rights. So when people say hateful and bigoted things, they do not get to invoke their right of free speech as a get-out-of-jail free card to avoid the ramifications that may come.

A popular example is the recent remarks by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy. Cathy freely admits to being against same-sex marriages. He has claimed: “We are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’”

That comment, and numerous follow-ups that show Cathy remains stout and vocal in his beliefs have led many to boycott Chick-fil-A, and even to stage protests of various forms at Chick-fil-A’s across the country. Many, such as former Gov. Sarah Palin, have supported Chick-fil-A, and Palin herself said that the call for a boycott “has a chilling effect on our First Amendment rights.”

It has no such effect.

The First Amendment has nothing to do with economic or social pressure put on people who voice their beliefs. If others in this nation would rather not spend their money at a particular business, they do not have to. If some people think donating millions of dollars to anti-LGBT groups such as the American Family Association, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council is grounds for a boycott, they are not violating anyone’s First Amendment rights.

There is a reason why the First Amendment is in our Constitution, the piece of writing that establishes our government. It is a government issue. The freedom of speech so oft invoked is only a freedom from government censorship. “Only” being a relative term here, for the freedom from government censorship is quite vast and remarkable all by itself.

Of course anyone like Cathy can speak up and voice what he feels is right and wrong in this world. No one can or should shut him up or tie him down. Anyone who disagrees, however, is absolutely entitled, and even obligated to tell him what they think of his remarks. Only through such interaction could anyone ever realize they may be wrong, or at least that what they say may be hurtful to others.

Personally, I think Cathy’s views on marriage are much too narrow. We do not live in a world in which marriage is mainly a spiritual and religious ceremony. There are legal benefits and ramifications for marriage, so it has become, however much it may pain those like Cathy, a secular institution as well.

As a secular and legal institution, we cannot use religious reasoning as a default excuse to ban certain groups from participation. Religious motivations are as good as any other when voting or lobbying for certain policies or laws, but rules that affect all citizens must go through a democratic process that at least takes into consideration the views and thoughts of all interested parties.

To the credit of Cathy, it does not appear he is attempting to shield himself behind a banner of free speech. There has also been no history of denial of service or employment to homosexuals from Chick-fil-A. It is the supporters of people like Cathy who feel they can validate their harmful words and protect themselves from the criticism of others who throw out the words free speech and First Amendment.

Whenever we say what we believe, whether in public or in relative privacy, we should not hide from what others think of our words behind the veil of an apparently misunderstood amendment to our Constitution. If people do not want to deal with how others will react to what they say, they should not say it in the first place.