So, I get why the case is interesting. (Though, as the Pepperdine professor also points out, probably a loser.) And lest I be accused of saying otherwise, the owner of the farm is clearly a racist POS and I have absolutely no visceral dissatisfaction with his asinine public statements coming home to roost.
But it just feels a bit… off for a public school district – and thus a government agency – to be the one imposing [EDIT; said penalties] effective consequences [end EDIT] for 1st-amendment-protected speech.
Imagine the roles were reversed here. Let’s say that this wasn’t happening now, but instead in 1983, and the owner of the farm where schoolchildren often come for class trips, civil war re-enactments, and whatnot, was instead strongly advocating for LGBT issues: equality under the law, a cultural shift to scrub away anti-LGBT prejudices, etc… He’d made public statements to that effect in local newspapers or 'zines or whatever.
The America (or California) of 1983 was a lot more virulently homophobic then. (Not that things are perfect now, by any means, but they’re a good sight better most places.) The local school districts could see this and decide that these statements are so far beyond the pale for them that they no longer want to give the farm owner any business.
Is the BB commentariat cool with that hypothetical? I know I’m not.
What also comes to mind: Drumpf making statements about NFL players who opted to take a knee during the national anthem being “sons of bitches” who the team owners should blackball and run out of the league. As the head of a third of the government, this is clearly, to me, government interference with the exercise of the first amendment, and failure on Drumpf’s part to uphold his oath to protect and defend the constitution. (And something that I’d include in his articles of impeachment, if I were authoring them.)
Not saying it’s to the same degree; or something that doesn’t collide in interesting ways with how things are done in the real world. But nonetheless, a school district deciding to pull business based on a business owner’s expression of odious personal opinions feels like it’s somewhere on a common spectrum.
I don’t know what the right dodge would be to square this.