To "appreciate" or "refudiate"? That is the question. Mr. Chick-fil-A and I have different views on what invites God's judgment on America. He says it's gay marriage, but I think it's more likely to be bigotry directed at gay teens at risk of being bullied and gay employees at risk of being fired for their LGBT status. So I "refudiate" Chick-fil-A, as is my right, while others "appreciate" it, as is their right.
I'm all for consumer choices. As a child, I tracked foods for ownership and content, and my siblings agreed, until the fateful day one sister wanted cookies from a conglomerate that mistreated farmworkers. "Mom promised politics would not interfere with our lives!" she protested. I won that round, but the future ground rules were "live and let live" -- I got my brands and she got hers. To this day I fight for food workers' rights and right-to-know GMO labeling provisions to inform my choices.
Politics does interfere with our lives, so we should adopt policies that allow each to make their own choices unalloyed with hypocrisy wherever possible. For example, some of the same Chick-Fil-A supporters invoking freedom of religion to appreciate a Christian's chicken campaigned against a Muslim mosque in New York City. Remember, Sarah Palin urged us to "refudiate" the so-called "ground zero mosque," and Mike Huckabee raised money by opposing it.
You can't appreciate the Christian's chicken while you refudiate the Muslim mosque and tell me it's about religious liberty for all, when we both know it's about faith-based activism for you. Either appreciate the chicken and the mosque as dual expressions of universal religious liberty and let affiliated persons choose their own patronage -- or appreciate and refudiate according to your own personal ideology and leave me the space for mine.