Great, thoughtful post.
I will say that I still feel you're wrong about being able to hurt Disney by taking your money away. It won't work.
It didn't work when those hate-filled religious groups tried to boycott WDW because TWDC treated its gay CMs equally with its straight CMs in terms of benefits. That was a big national campaign.
Didn't make any difference, so I don't care how many individuals decide to keep away. Others will take their place.
We might have to agree to disagree on that one. Before we do, how about a little more discussion.
I should have added another sentence into my post (it was already long, so don't fault me for that). I don't think money is the sole recourse, I completely agree that we need to voice complaints when we have them. In the past year I have been to Main Street once and written two letters (now perhaps I could have pushed the issue further in each of these circumstances, and in the future, I will, but I digress...).
That said, I think the best recourse for most people here is to complain, both in person and in letter, and act with their wallets. I think the comparison to the religious groups is unfair (I say this without any inside knowledge, so the following is all qualified as "my opinion"). Even if Disney were harmed by those groups, I can't see the company backing down, because it is a matter of principle. If Disney acquiesces to the demands of one ideological group, that sets a precedent for them to do the same to others. The best recourse thus is to ignore it until it goes away.
This is a bit different. We wouldn't be protesting on the basis of ideology, but rather to the substance of the product they offer. It's one thing for a company to change its behavior due to consumer demand, it's totally different for the company to change its behavior for militant demands (while you may retort that the religious folks were potential consumers, so the two demands are analogous, but the demands they were making were outside the realm of consumers, and thus, are not the same).
Additionally, you discuss others taking the place of those who stay away. My point was not to stay away, my point was to spend less money while there. Now, I'll admit you have me on the example of dining--to a degree. This is because many restaurants are solidly booked, so my failing to make an ADR at one of those restaurants means nothing, someone else will take my place. This is not the case at all restaurants, however. If one takes their business from one of these restaurants that typically runs lower than capacity, that impacts Disney.
Same goes for not spending as much on merchandise. There is nothing finite about merchandise--Disney will make as much as they can sell, so the argument that someone else will buy the mug that I don't also falls flat.
Heck, I think the same goes with the Resorts and Parks (now I have expanded it to not going!), too. If the Resorts and Parks aren't filled to capacity, you can't make the argument that someone else will replace me. Since they aren't at capacity in the first place, that replacement could have been there at the same time.
I think the best way to go about impacting the company is by both voicing concerns and enumerating the ways in which you plan on changing/have changed your spending habits while at the park. Maybe management is savvy enough to determine changes in spending habits on their own, but my guess is that would take longer than just spelling it out for them.