Private companies in the US can discriminate or otherwise choose who they want as customers except if the criteria is a protected class. Currently, political reasons are not protected so Godaddy would be within its rights to deny service.
People have forgotten their history and why certain attributes have become protected classes for which discrimination is not allowed. This was not done due to some moral altruism by the laws and courts. These were assigned protective class status because private companies began to exclude people and eventually all or most private companies in an area started excluding people of a certain race or gender etc... This results in people not being able to participate in society. While they remain free people and the businesses have their freedom to choose it is not real freedom when you cannot participate in the society that you are part of. This is why we now have enforced protected classes.
When we do not stand up as reasonable people and participate in the process to indicate the companies we do not want them to be the moral arbiters of our lives we are effectively letting them determine who can participate in the online society and who cannot. The idea that just because of company can do something does not mean it should and does not mean that we should allow it. If we get to the point that we have to make laws to protect someone's race or sex or now what's coming is political affiliation or opinion then we as a society have failed in our duty to each other. Creating a new law and codifying the fact that people should be allowed to participate in society even with opinions that we do not like should cause everyone to take a hard look in the mirror and realize they are the problem. Whatever happened to the idea that I do not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.
A company should not be able to act like a publisher and determine what stays on their service and when someone sues them for libel they claim they're not a publisher and hide behind the shield.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
---
> At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Do you have anything reasonable that describes the position that Section 230 somehow doesn't mean what it plainly says?
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-...
> the court held that because Prodigy was exercising editorial control over the messages that appeared on its bulletin boards through its content guidelines and software screening program, Prodigy was more like a "publisher" than a "distributor" and therefore fully liable for all of the content on its site.
> The result of the case is central to the rationale behind passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, aimed to allow internet service providers to avoid liability for user content on their services while still giving them the means for removing illegal content.