In light of the recent controversy surrounding comments made by Dolce and Gabbana about gay parenting and Elton John's response calling for a boycott of their store, I have been contemplating the proper role of the boycott in modern societies. In the case of Elton John, it seems to me he is doing it all wrong. Let's ignore the fact that Dolce and Gabbana are gay themselves and most likely agree with Elton John on 99.99999% of issues. Elton John wants to show his disapproval by causing Dolce and Gabbana pain. Would a boycott accomplish this? The answer is not likely. Let's assume that Elton John was able to cause a significant reduction of revenues of the D&G business, who would be affected? Before Dolce and Gabbana begin to see serious impact on their income, the business would slow down production. A reduction in production means less work for poor workers in developing countries actually making the clothes, less work for the poor and middle class people involved in transporting and distributing the clothes to retail and online stores, and less retail workers are required to serve the dwindling demand. After Elton John has caused pain to all these people, he finally gets to Dolce & Gabbana themselves. What happens to them. Let's take a worst case scenario. Mr. Dolce (Net Worth $1.7 billion) doesn't get to buy a new 250-foot yacht this year  and Mr Gabbana won't be able to buy a new Lamborghini Aventador . However will they survive? You really showed them Elton John. Meanwhile in Malaysia, a 13 year old girl becomes a prostitute because her mom got laid off from the D&C factory and they can't afford rent.

Now for my general argument.

First, boycotting a rich asshole's business doesn't affect them and just hurts the little guy.

Second, causing financial or social pain on someone because you disagree with their opinion violates the right to free speech. Just because you don't call it government doesn't mean a collective action to silence someone isn't a violation of a person's right to free speech. A society that forces people to shut up through collective means other than government is no better than the society that makes it into law. As mature adults we don't have to burn at the stake every person who disagrees with us.

Finally, you should only boycott a business in cases where you disagree with their business practices, not the opinions of their owners/employees. For example, if a business discriminates against gays, mistreats animals, or pollutes with impunity, I believe you have a legitimate cause, if not a moral obligation, to boycott that business. If the CEO says something homophobic in a personal email, but doesn't discriminate in the execution of his job, there is no reason to protest until he gets fired.