I think the idea of compartmentalization and the inability to consume ethically loses some water for the parties affected by terrible corporations when those corporations show their hand. The pipeline of most businesses' production and revenue streams aren't transparent, which at some degree leaves people less equipped to make responsible "choices" (however much "choice" you can have for ethical consumption in a capitalistic system.) But Chick-fil-A is openly saying "We donate to anti-LGBT groups because fuck gay people." They're... not shy about it. So the choice of supporting them is more transparent.
There's also an issue of projection on my part. If they were donating to Blue Lives Matter groups I would be livid with anyone who claims to be an ally compartmentalizing on what is basically a slam-dunk case for a boycott. I would think if "my side" can easily shrug and compromise my quality of life on a chicken restaurant I'm fucked (foregoing the fact that I already think America is fucked in regards to racial issues.)
And I understand I undoubtedly purchase things that are harmful to the world because I don't think you can be a perfectly ethical consumer in a system inexplicably tied to deadly exploitation of human beings to service its existence. But I don't think that reality means choices completely lose context and the ability to sit on a scale of morality. The answer to "Why do progressives who claim to support LGBT rights give money to an openly anti-LGBT organization?" is not "Well, you own a phone."
