>I very much do not want internet service providers or pamphlet printing companies or fast food deliveries to start refusing service to my political opponents vocally advocating for things I consider ethically despicable - that form of exclusion is simply not appropriate, and I would not consider it fair if I was on the receiving end, so what's sauce for goose is sauce for gander.

Why not use this logic to justify buying from a supplier who uses slavery, because what if you were the slaver? Is there anything someone can do to justify another's refusal to buy from them in future? I assume you wouldn't buy from someone who ripped you off somehow; would you consider this to be a moral failing on the part of the seller? Is slavery a moral failing?

>Asking for a proper exclusion of an unliked group or opinion reminds me of all kinds of centuries-old historical issues of boycotting shops because they were ran by [people from the political party hated in this neighbourhood] or [someone who doesn't go to the same church as us] or [this ethnic group with whom we had/have war], which (at least in retrospective)

I don't think "C-suite execs who use slave labour to save a buck" is the sort of protected group that you're invoking here, and IMO comparing them is hideous. You're suggesting that "someone doing something unethical" is the same as "someone doing something I don't like", and therefore boycotting either is essentially the same thing.

>IMHO it's much safer to draw the line at excess inclusion rather than excess exclusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance