How is this-- assuming there is a "this"-- a secondary boycott?  Or, for that matter, how is the boycott of JCPenny one?  In both cases, people are boycotting based on the actions of the targetted business, not those of some third party.

They're both secondary because both involve actions outside any business relationship the aggrieved parties have with the companies. Hiring a gay spokesperson does not detrimentally affect anti-gay shoppers or employees in any significant way. And as I've mentioned above, there have been no claims that pro-gay shoppers or employees have been directly and unfairly impacted by the owner's words or donations.

In legal terms, the various protesters have no standing. Offending their sense of propriety is not legitimate harm.

And as I've mentioned above, there have been no claims that pro-gay shoppers or employees have been directly and unfairly impacted by the owner's words or donations.

Only if you don't think that preventing them from marrying-- which his donations help do-- doesn't cause them harm.

How does not being able to marry prevent a gay person from buying a chicken sandwich meal? Because that's the total extent of harm possible in the relationship of any customer to Chick-fil-A.

Or flip it around, if we need to take into account the total life experience of any business/customer interaction: the revocation of anti-gay laws over the past few decades have fostered an environment where Cathy feels he must send money to pro-traditional marriage organizations, where he might otherwise have instead donated to more traditional Christian charities -- orphans and outreach and such. Under the total life experience rule, he should have a civil rights claim against pro-gay groups and all states that have passed pro-gay rights legislation where he has a business, for making his life worse.

How does not being able to marry prevent a gay person from buying a chicken sandwich meal?

It doesn't prevent a gay person from buying a chicken sandwich.  Buying a chicken sandwich helps to ensure that he or she will continue to be unable to marry when a portion of the proceeds from that sandwich goes toward organizations fighting to maintain just that state of affairs.

I agree that donating to anti-gay causes instead of orphans makes Cathy's life worse.  If he thinks so, too, all he has to do is switch where he sends his donations.

I say let him waste his time and money. He's swimming against the tide and it's only a matter of time before most states allow gay marriage, especially since the politics of it are now without debate on the side of gay marriage.

More to the point, I guess I always thought of a secondary boycott as, "We don't like what your supplier/country/whatever is doing, but we can't boycott them directly, so we're going to boycott you," whereas both of these boycotts are a matter of "We don't like what you're doing (i.e. having a gay-friendly marketing campaign/donating to anti-gay organizations) so we're going to boycott you."

For a secondary-- by my understanding-- boycott example, boycotting a South African business during apartheid would have been done to punish South Africa, not because the boycotters had any particular dislike for the business.

what behavior has chick-fil-a limited?

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

i can't know that any more than you can.  i'm asking if they should be allowed to limit the behavior of any employee.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

I'd assume if they had it would have been wiped all over the headlines. Other than that what an employee and employer agree to is pretty much between them so long as it's lawful.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

What an asshole.

Did he just waste the better part of 20 minutes in the drive thru lane burning gas just to get his cup of water to make his point?  And did he end up pointing out to those servers that he is "totally heterosexual, not a drop of gay" as an adieu?  Yes, he did.  One hopes those hippies he was pointing out looking like they were going to stage a sit in decided to egg his car because they thought he was patronizing Chick-Fil-A.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

Aaand he's fired.

He needs to update his LinkedIn profile.

His next gig -- replacing the cows on the Chick-Fil-A billboard campaign.  It will feature a screenshot of him talking into the camera with a headline of "EET MOAR KROW".

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.