People have been planking up their windows ahead of hurricanes forever.
The world doesn't and shouldn't stop spinning because a small minority is overly excited about something that the rest doesn't care about.
A protest is _supposed_ to disrupt, in order to get the world at large to look at injustices which have conveniently been ignored under the status quo. The _whole point_ of a protest is to stop business as usual, and attempt to change it.
What drives a person to protest? It is a desperate measure for people who have been failed by society at all other turns. What drove them there cannot have been some trivial matter.
While it takes a significant amount of dissatisfaction among a significant section of the population to create a protest - so it's probably not something "a small minority is overly excited about" (also, "overly" by whose standards? Yours?) - does it _matter_ whether it's a majority or minority that's protesting? Is a tyranny of the majority the kind of world you're after?
To try and keep up "business as usual" in the face of its systemic failures is to try and Band-Aid a gaping wound. It's on the same level as installing benches unsuitable for sleeping, rather than tackling homelessness.
It's not planking up your windows for a hurricane. It's holding an umbrella in one and hoping that nothing will change. It's the epitome of short-sightedness.
Protesters may feel that their concerns and actions are justified but that doesn't mean that everyone else must agree with them. That doesn't mean that the targets of their uncontrolled anger must stay passive either. Alice may justifiably be angry about something, but Bob is equally justified in his desire to not have his store's window smashed… and she _must_ acknowledge that symmetry if she doesn't want to be bitten too hard by Bob's reaction to her action.
Protesters are definitely justified in using their right to protest (or fighting for it), but those who don't share their concerns are equally justified in making contingency plans.