Shouldn't punishments and protests fit their respective crimes and civil violations, though? There has to be some logical throughline of consequence to enact change. Like, you don't slash someone's tires for shoplifting and call it justice. Protests, even if unjustly squashed, always have greater standing if they're built on an intrinsic right. Rosa Parks didn't protest her dehumanization by shitting on her congressman's lawn, she directly confronted the dehumanizing treatment in order to make a clear statement, and she did so without infringing on anyone else's basic rights.
What I'm tying say is messaging matters when it comes to protest, otherwise all you're doing is placating your own righteous indignation and nothing more. John Lewis doesn't tell people to get into indiscriminate trouble, he deliberately labels it as "good trouble" because not all forms of civil unrest are equal. In this case, there's a substantial risk of creating more of a distraction by encouraging businesses to discriminate against the rights of Trump staffers. Hell, I'd argue the right, with the help of the feckless mainstream media, has completely succeeded in changing the dialogue around the rights of immigrant children to something as profoundly stupid as what constitutes unjust incivility towards public servants. And yes, the right would have tried to change that narrative no matter what, but considering they're doing so as a reactionary measure against the actions of the left, the instigating act has a tremendous consequence on how effective the right will be in changing said narrative.
And to be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR, I don't at all disagree with public shaming making the lives of these assholes unbearable. But that action is constitutionally protected while businesses discriminating against who they serve based on their political affiliation is not. That distinction absolutely matters to how effective either form of protest will be.
