Logic is primarily about language. So, to say that God is "bound" by the laws of logic is somewhat misleading. It is more accurate to say that, in order to talk about God, we must use logic.
Consider the sentence (example 1): Can God shibstrip the boom? Well, can he or can't he? The problem is, in order to answer that question, we need to have some idea of what is meant by the word shibstrip. Otherwise it's just a nonsense question.
Now consider the sentence (example 2): Can God create a square circle? Before we answer this question, however, we must know, what is a square circle? Unlike example (1), this example contains no nonsense words, and it is grammatically correct. However, even though the grammar works out, the sentence is semantically incorrect. In particular, the term "square circle" suggests a self-contradiction, which means any sentence using that term---including this example (2)---is incoherent.
Finally, consider the sentence (example 3): Can God create a stone so big that he cannot lift it? But what is a stone so big God cannot lift it? If God is omnipotent, then he can lift any stone at all. So, to refer to an unliftable stone results in a contradiction---for all stones are also liftable. In example (2), the contradiction between square and circle was immediately apparent, but here in example (3) the contradiction is somewhat less obvious. However, obvious or not, the contradiction is there, which means that this third example sentence is likewise incoherent.
In short, if a person is to ask whether or not God can create a stone so big that he cannot lift it, then he is just talking nonsense. We might as well ask whether or not God can toad the wet sprocket!
I hope that helps.