Whilst I take the stance that opinions cannot be policed, I would still actively boycott a product or a company that was engaging in something I very strongly felt against. Because that is merely a means to express my own opinion, in a non-violent way that doesn't actively prevent others from expressing theirs.

Boycott is the most powerful form of protest if done correctly because business and money drive an organisation. If a decision or stance is harming their business, they have no choice but to make a change there. And if they don't, the business goes down under. Thus the company can no longer engage in questionable acts. And it isn't just opinion when organisations lobbying for change on an issue are being funded (I don't know if that's the case here, this thread is the first I've heard of it).

However.

Whilst I would like to consider myself as a very liberal minded human being who would stand up to fight for justice, the truth of it is that I don't credit myself that highly. The actual nature of boycott is that you must inconvenience yourself in order to inconvenience somebody else.

That being said, would I actively inconvenience myself in order to fight for the issue? Probably not. I'm politically weak and it would be fraudulent for me to pretend to want to fight for an issue I'll probably take a passing interest in.

There's a great deal of armchair activism in place currently. Whereby forwarding a link on Facebook or posting a message on twitter is considered enough to change the world. People feel satisfied that this is all that is involved in "doing their bit". It's a lazy way to feel good about yourself. And it absolutely doesn't work.

I used to fall prey to some of this myself (even earlier this very year I've done some) and I can't say that I still won't if something strikes a nerve. It's an instinctive reaction that I need to learn to grow out of, really. But a lot of people equate this to helping with the problem when it altogether doesn't. They feel like their political due has been fulfilled.

I feel strongly about this issue, but I'm not sure I feel strongly enough to boycott. Maybe a single fast food restaurant, but if it was a large scale corporation I'd have a harder time. I think unless something is on the brink of affecting your individual freedoms or lifestyle, it's hard to get motivated.

If a company like Burger King engaged in this, I'd "boycott" burger king. But since I eat there less than 10 times a year anyway it's not really a boycott. The company won't feel anything from my lack of service. If I were to boycott a company that I poured hundreds into a year like a supermarket chain, they'd feel it a little more. Boycott is only effective if it really hurts the enterprise and usually it'll only do that if you are inconvenienced by boycotting.

Just saw this headline:

"Chick-Fil-A ... As Bad As The KKK‎"

And sighed.

Why do people always have to do this shit? An argument can be made without ridiculous overdramatisation and hyperbole.

Okay that article was actually being ironic with the headline and pointing out people are making something big out of nothing.

Maybe I'm the fool in this situation (:

The more I read up on the fact that this company was actually being outlawed from operating in certain locations for the views of the CEO, the more bewildered I'm becoming.

Whether your views are draconian, unpopular or extremist, the state should not stop you from operating unless you are causing physical harm or damage to another or another's property.