Wow, like leaving out details much?
Just for reference, the problem isn't that Dan Cathy expressed an unpopular opinion. The problem is that Chik-fil-A's "charity" organization, the WinShape Foundation, has donated millions of dollars to anti-LGBT hate groups. Did Barack or Hillary do that?
No, the problem was that Dan Cathy expressed an unpopular opinion and THEN (and only then) his charity organization came under fire. The liberal-biased media played their part by vilifying him, while the conservative-biased media praised him, and people swore allegiance to one side or the other. Chick-fil-a has no well-known history of corporate bigotry. WinShape may donate to organizations that the liberal-biased media dislike and thus they get branded perpetrators of "hate speech."
The issue here (Hobby Lobby) is similar. One side is trying to accuse Hobby Lobby of being misogynistic etc. in order to vilify them in the court of public opinion. In reality, Hobby Lobby's owners are saying that the Government is mandating they pay for services for themselves and their employees that violate their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court agreed this was wrong and provided a very narrow exemption for them.
In both cases CEO's of major companies are trying to live their religious beliefs in every aspect of their lives including how their corporation acts. In both cases the media tried to vilify them by projecting the worst possible construction on their motives (misogyny, bigotry, hate speech etc.) In both cases the Government acted appropriately by choosing to not dictate their actions or force them to go against their religious beliefs. The result is that everyone from Dan Cathy to Barak Obama are free to use their money in accordance with their personal beliefs without fear of Government intervention. Just because YOU don't like their choice in how they spend it does not justify labeling it as "hate speech." The beauty of this country is that we're allowed to have this debate without fear of Government (or theocratic) censorship.