This is false equivalence. Imagine if I could support a company when they help take down websites breeding hate speech and terrorists - and not support that same company if they interfered with an election.
No, they aren't equating mass shooting and political candidates. They are responding to the assertion that political ideology isn't a protected class.
If you want to defend the 1st amendment rights of companies to choose their customers, you must apply that across the board, or suggest the laws be changed.
If companies can exercise their 1st amendment rights to shut down political ideology in this instance (and if you think that's fine), then to be consistent you need to defend it elsewhere. Shutting down political opponents, choosing which political ads to run, choosing which investigations to allow in search results, etc. And censoring Elizabeth Warren is a perfectly valid example of how companies could exercise their rights, if indeed you think those rights should exist.
I understand the point they're making, but I'm not putting forth the argument they're arguing against. I think companies should be banned from most forms of political speech because their goals are by nature typically harmful to their workers and often the public at large.
However, even if the laws were changed to do so, I don't think that this should count as 'political speech'. Terrorism and hate should not be considered valid or protected political ideologies.
