That's not the distinction I'm making. But I see where we're talking past each other: you're primarily concerned with what the company or CEO has a right to do. I'm talking about how big a deal that action is (personal donation of CEO vs company policy statement from CEO). And it has nothing to do with private vs publicly held. Sure, I agree, they both have a right to do what they did. But, opinions on the key issue aside, those two actions had a different scale and connotation to them.
As for rights, try to keep in mind the key issue here is a debate on a specific right as well. What people are debating is changing the law, changing your rights. If local governments feel a certain right or something they desire to be considered a right is being infringed on or threatened by a company, then it's no longer so black and white.
As for rights, try to keep in mind the key issue here is a debate on a specific right as well. What people are debating is changing the law, changing your rights. If local governments feel a certain right or something they desire to be considered a right is being infringed on or threatened by a company, then it's no longer so black and white.