At least they made up a plausible case for firing Churchill, the guys in Boston and Chicago didn't even really try. They came right out and gave their unconstitutional reason and they thought it would buy them points somehow.
Tertius just said it was bad precedent to deny CFA on the basis of what the owner said or believes and, though it gives him some satisfaction to see the guy pay for what he said, it isn't right. (paraphrased from memory).
Except that in the case of Chicago the alderman was completely within bounds of the terms of his office. In Boston the mayor didn't threaten to block any permits- he only voiced his disagreement.