I 83% agree with you (if I did my math right). Personally, if I ever had gone toa Chick-fil-a or had one near me, I would avoid it no over this.

However, unless I missed something, I think #6 does not directly apply here. Boycot the chain, sure, more power to you. But when Chicago and Boston (if I recall) talked about officially making thuings difficult with Chick-fil-a, it wasn't a matter of making sure they abide by the law. Their clearly stated view is basically, "They don't share our values, so we are going to make life difficult for them." Threats of licensing for new restaurants being overly scrutinized and delayed, etc. – and not over possible legal violations (since Chick-fil-a isn't in the business of marrying people anyway), but over value differences.

The best analogy I read was imagine a business run in the South by a liberal who is vocal about supporting gay marriage. After mentioning in an interview how much they personally support gay marriage, suddenly local governments starting running them out of town and preventing them opening new locations for no other reason than "we disagree with you."

It is 100% wrong. Free speech is free speech regardless of what the opinion is of the majority of people. Being held accountable by individuals deciding to boycott? Great! Other businesses deciding to not be associated? Thank you, Jim Henson Company for still being awesome. Government shutting you down or "making things really difficult"? No, absolutely not.

Now, if I missed something in the interview where the CEO said he would violate laws and Chicago and Boston were worried about that, then I stand corrected. However, everything I have seen looks far more like government threatening to strong arm a business over the unpopular opinion of its CEO. That is a blatant free speech violation, and even if I agree that the CEOs views are wrong and thankfully becoming outdated, government punishment of that opinion is 100% wrong.

Even worse, it distracts from the real focus of the debate by giving the other side a valid claim of hypopcrisy on our parts if we support governments punishing a business not over violations but free speech. Personally, I see that as more damaging to the cause than what some overly conservative CEO I have never heard of says in a Christian magazine.