Thanks for the follow-up. I'm kinda torn on this one (well, not that I really buy bolthouse products anyway...).
On the one hand, you are certainly correct that the company had supported anti-gay causes, and the founder had profitted from the company, and he currently supports anti-gay causes.
On the other hand, growing up reading the bible I was always very put off by the idea of latter generations being required to pay for the "sins of the father", so imho a company that severs its ties with anti-gay policies should not be held accountable for the actions of previous owners/managers.
On the third hand, I also don't have a good gut feeling on this company now... so while I wouldn't actively encourage others to boycott, I probably would skip over their brand if I was in the mood for some ass-flavored chai. If they did come out and actively support da gays, I'd be more likely to support them.
On the fourth hand (wait, what?), I am still uncomfortable with the idea of fellow activists organizing a boycott against a company that has not conclusively been found to support anti-gay policies. Stick to the boycott against Manchester Hotels because Doug Manchester is still making money from them.