The tort, as I recall, takes different forms in different states. Some require contractual relations to exist between the parties- others don't, but it has been some time since i reviewed those differences. In any case, calling for a boycott should not be a casual occurence.
In any and all cases any assertion of tortious interference is subordinate to First Amendment.
The Supreme Court has determined that screaming fire in a crowded theater is not a first amendment right, because of the clear and present danger associated with such utterances.
Calling for a boycott of a company because of dissatisfaction is so far removed from a case of crying fire in a crowded theater that the two concepts are only relevant to illustrate the differences.
There is a slightly higher standard of care required as regards liability when speech concerns a private individual as compared with a public entity or individual. However, a corporate entity such as Godiva. which presents itself to the public and manages its public image, is subject to the lesser standard as a public entity.
In any case, to even presume the postings of the OP are in any way fathomable as tortious interference is. IMHO, totally ludicrous.
The only way I can conceive of a court proscribing such activities would be if the OP conducted the campaign inside the store. Even then, that would be almost surely addressed as a case of trespass rather than tortious interference.