Vetoing Another's Choices

Although I agree with some of what Robert Araujo says in his post on religious freedom and the right to be a citizen and think the forced resignation of Mr. Eckern was unfortunate, one particular sentence gave me pause.  Robert says that "How a person spends one’s resources on matters that are legally protected should not be subject to another’s veto." Depending on what Robert means by veto, I think the statement may be problematic. 

Let's assume Mr. Eckern was the 100% owner of a small store and made the same contribution.  I don't think there is anything wrong with individual people who disagree with his position and object to his contribution deciding not to shop in his store.  Just as he has the legally protected right to spend his money as he choose, shouldn't consumers also have the right to decide not to finance his contributions to causes they disagree with by not adding to his profits?  Shouldn't they are free to refuse to support him based on their objection to his views  whether or not the views they object to arise out of his religious beliefs or some other source.

I'd be interested in hearing from Robert if he would object to a consumer acting in this fashion.