If she voted the other way it would mean that she is not a pure supporter of property rights. I agree they are seperate events.
To me it seems Cindy either had a change of heart about her feelings that all paint colors are fine with her or she was not being true to her own desires when she cast her vote.
She still thinks he has a legal right to do it, just as she has a legal right to pressure him not to do it using peer pressure, persuasion, or legal retaliation. She supports both his right to do it, and her own right to express her dislike of what he did and act in legal ways on her dislike.
To use a personal example from my life, my 18 year old daughter decided to marry a 35 year old ex-felon who has children of his own that are her age. I did not and still don't support her decision, but I do acknowledge that it was her right as a legal adult to make that choice.
I am sorry to hear that. I would say that you are supportive of her right to make the decision and at the same time do not support the particular decision she decided to make. Assuming you tried to convince her not to do it, that would not mean you did not support the concept that it is her decision to make.
There are two issues here as I see it. One is the semantics of what "support" means. The second is what I read as your accusation that certain people on this thread (or people quoted on this thread) do not support Ford's property rights, thus they are not as supportive of property rights as they presumably think they are. (ie. they are hypocrites) I don't think anyone loses any libertarian or pro-property rights credentials by legally responding to Ford's decision by deciding not to buy a car from them, or from publicly ridiculing Ford's decision. Such activities are 100% consistent with a libertarian strict property rights outlook. Some of the people in your examples may or may not be 100% pro property rights, but your quotes alone do not demonstrate inconsistencies with a pro-property rights outlook.