If I understand your examples correctly, handling firmware can be a very painful experience, nausea inducing even.
But *if* I understood them correctly, I'm not clear on your objections against the linux-libre kernel.
If someone were to say that shipping (a part of) such a vendor's product and mentioning their products name was a subset of the term "endorsement", I would not find that unreasonable.
Now if that someone would say, "I do not want to endorse any vendor that would inflict such a painful experience on those kernel-hackers, even though I myself am not a kernel hacker and my kernel might be less functional.
", I would find such an action to be social and commendable.
Where could such a user go and download a kernel that he could use in the secure knowledge that he would not be unwittingly causing problems for kernel-hackers ?
Regardless of the exact background leading to the creation of linux-libre, the end result addresses the above question nicely; now such users can go and use the linux-libre kernel.
Now "not wanting to harm anyone though inaction" might have ideological connotations, but in my opinion is more of a simple act of solidarity than any sort of strict ideology.