<p>@psalcal - Everything you state is dead on. Except that you seem not to want to acknowledge the costs to such actions. </p>
<p>Yes, it is time-honored tradition, but that was not my point. My point was there is a loss involved that I believe the protestors really have no right in imposing on others who are paying and depending on said private businesses. </p>
<p>Specifically, your analysis does not include the point-of-view of the employees who did not support a strike, yet whose families suffered because of lost paychecks. Why do the protestors think they have a right to harm those families? Your analysis did not include the potential monetary loss of the franchise owners of Chick-Fil-A. Why do protestors think they have a right to impose a monetary loss on those owners?</p>
<p>Following the above examples, I do not think the protesters have the right to detract from the Dartmouth experience of other paying students who may not believe in what they are doing. That was my point.</p>
<p>PS: The Starbucks example is a weird one to analyze because it was both gun rights activists and gun control activists that met at Starbucks. Kind of a dueling rally thing. Not sure what to make of that one. Sounds like a wash.</p>