Money is speech according to the SCOTUS. With that regard, speaking with your money (i.e. denying it, boycotting, supporting, donating, etc) all seem perfectly acceptable. I don't see how you can consider it being "oppressed".... it's just "speaking against them" when the owner of said business donates their own money to causes against them. You're taking it awfully personal if you call it oppression. They are not oppressed... not unless you think being pressured to stop oppressing other people is itself a form of oppression. People are free to speak as they wish, but that doesn't mean that they are free from the consequences. If that means the owner, the franchises and all the employees suffer (or benefit as it may be), then so be it. Pick a better business partner.
Thats exactly what the few courts have been doing. From the California case. This is all about winning respect for homosexuals from the rest of society and dignity for themselves.
Oppression occurs when 4 different, local GOVERNMENT officials state or imply that Chick Fil a will be blocked by government from conducting business in their areas, SPECIFICALLY because of their views.
