Obviously, no business wants to be associated with BLM any more than they want to be associated with the KKK. Every company I've ever worked for has had dress codes that prohibited divisive political slogans and offensive language.
What you described as ideal is what the US is supposed to be, and what you described evangelicals as doing is what evangelicals are actually doing, and doesn't really rise above the level of annoying. Maybe they are mentally ill, but that doesn't make them anything beyond annoying.
But people do have a first amendment right to preach. They don't have a claim to a captive audience, though.
That wasn't "evangelicals," alone. That was a lot of different kinds of people, most of whom were women. Roe vs. Wade was bad precedent. If you think women should have the freedom to abort pregnancies without interference, get it enshrined in actual law, not dubious interpretation of constitutional law.
A "capitalist," according to socialists, esp. Marxists, is someone who engages in anticompetitive behavior, insider trading, protection racketeering, bribery, and all manner of dubious and criminal behavior.
Someone who just believes that people should be able to trade freely, associate freely, and keep the vast majority of what they have earned or traded for fairly are routinely called capitalists by socialists and communists to shame them for being successful.
Evangelicals are, at best, annoying. I say this as a Christian conservative. There are other (and better) ways of fulfilling the Great Commission besides arsing people into your favorite flavor of dogma.
Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.
Sure, that's fair enough. That's fact-checking. But refusing to report on something ostensibly "because it wasn't correct" isn't an ethical journalistic practice. That would be propaganda.
I've seen dictionary arguers do this all the time. You say that a word means one thing, and they say, "No, it doesn't." Then they cite a dictionary which provides a few definitions, one of which is in the sense that the subject was using it, and they point to the existence of literally any other definition as evidence that "it does not mean that."
Obviously, no business wants to be associated with BLM any more than they want to be associated with the KKK. Every company I've ever worked for has had dress codes that prohibited divisive political slogans and offensive language.