From a personal standpoint or a government one? I think most of us agree that a government blocking the business because of this is wrong and it was an overstep for the mayors in Boston & Chicago to threaten it.
I think perhaps the definition of boycott you're using is a bit more narrow than the casual usage of the word.
This and this, I think. God, I've been working on this reply for 30 minutes now, trying to find a way to express my thoughts. Discussing terminology in a foreign language is hard.
A boycott, where I'm from, has a goal. The goal is, usually, to change something. In this case, the boycott's goal would be to change the CEO's opinion on homosexuality. I think that's wrong, because he has a right to his opinion. That doesn't mean I agree with him, of course. I strongly disagree with anti-*** movements, but I acknowledge their right to be who they are, just as I acknowledge the *** people's right to be who they are.
In essence, I think he's stupid for being anti-***, but I think people are stupid for boycotting him because of it. It's not going to change his view on anything, and it's only hurting a lot of innocent employees who might not share the CEO's opinion(s).
I think that's what I mean. I'm a little fuzzy. Haven't had my coffee today. Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 6:43pm by Mazra