“SunTrust supports the rights of all Americans to fully exercise their freedoms granted under the Constitution, including those with respect to free speech and freedom of religion.”
—-SunTrust Bank, doing its best Cracker Barrel imitation by reversing its decision, announced earlier in the day, to pull all of its listed properties with the Benham brothers’ bank-owned property business.
SunTrust was following the lead of craven, political correctness bully-enabling HGTV, which a week ago announced it was canceling a planned home renovation show hosted by the Benhams as punishment for their conservative views on same-sex marriage, because, as we all know, gays are the heart and soul of the home renovation business. Thus emboldened, the bank decided that citizens opposing same-sex marriage as taught by the faith they had been raised to embrace deserved to have their business harmed, since that’s what the SunTrust suits’ moistened fingers in the wind told them their sensitive, right-thinking customers wanted.
But the announcement turned that wind into a roaring hurricane of protest from conservatives, and, we can at least hope, some actual liberals among Democrats who comprehend that banks should not be enforcers of the growing, un-American movement to make life nasty, brutish and short for anyone who dares to see the world differently from the news media, the universities, and the rest of the thought-crime legislators among us. Thus the quick reversal, and the noble words above.
So why is SunTrust’s impeccable affirmation of their iron-clad support for our precious freedom unethical?
Because it’s crap, that’s why. It’s insincere PR salve by an organization, like most banks, admittedly, with no principles or integrity whatsoever. If SunTrust really supported the rights of all Americans to fully exercise their freedoms granted under the Constitution, including those with respect to free speech and freedom of religion, it wouldn’t have considered ending its business relations with the Benhams because gay groups wanted the brothers’ heads on a pike. The quote is code that anyone who followed the disgraceful episode should be able to understand without a Captain Midnight decoder ring, and it means simply this:
“Oopsie! We thought following the pro-gay marriage mob was the smart move, given what a lucrative demographic gays are and all, but after our phones lit up and the nasty tweets and e-mails started rolling in, we ran the numbers again, and no, on second thought, we make more money this way, by not pulling the Benhams’ investments and then posing as freedom-loving patriots. Of course, if the numbers change again, we’ll switch again, because we’re complete, untrustworthy, cowardly weasels. God bless America!”
Yup. Weasels.
I had two SunTrust banks accounts.
Not any more.
___________________
Pointer and Facts: Daily Caller
Graphic: Pop Weasels
Ethics Alarms 
What have you got against weasels? I gather they make decent pets for people who are of that fancy (think ferrets, only more so).
But not especially reliable role models or financial managers. Bankers, I’m told, can be delightful pets, however.
. . . I had two SunTrust banks accounts. Not any more.
You are 10 kinds of awesome!
Typical- whether it’s SunTrust, Cracker Barrel or Target, if a company doesn’t have a clearly defined set of values and culture built into their DNA, this is the outcome again and again.
I would remind us all that the Bill of Rights does not “grant” us those freedoms. It merely enumerates them. We have those rights by nature.
Gunter, “Nature” does not grant us or anything else any right other than the right to be eaten by a lion. However, you, me and we all may have any right we are willing to fight and possibly die to acquire and maintain. Once we stop being willing to do that, those rights will evaporate like dry ice in a warm breeze. As Jack aptly noted, the current situation in this country is that the rights of a 9% minority apparently outweigh the rights of a 91% majority, primarily because that minority is willing to fight for that right. I am glad to see at least some form of backlash against it, but it would be nice if corporate policies were not so bloody malleable.
I do not have a “right” to be eaten by anything. “Rights” are the moral principles defining human interactions. Failing to support or fight for those rights usually invites abuse. My point was simply that it is dangerous to concede that the rights are granted by a piece of paper. I have the right to free speech regardless of whether the first amendment is repealed or was never written. I agree that if we fail to fight for them our rights will be violated, but the right exists whether I am strong enough to fight for it or not.
“…rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory…”, from the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy. In other words, I define my rights by defining the legal, social or ethical theory under which I choose to live. Rights are4 not a “moral” anything unless you are trying to say that denying rights is immoral. And rights do not occur in nature, which was the point I was trying to make. Sorry you missed it.
We are saying the same thing. ‘moral’ as defined as being “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior” is exactly a “fundamental normative rule.” And I agreed that “rights” do not apply when discussing lions. You are the one that missed the point. Again, the fundamental point of my initial remark was that the “rights” aren’t granted by the Constitution. If you think they are, you should reconsider.
You and I agree on a great deal, but we do not agree on where rights come from. No they are not “granted” by the Constitution…but also, no, they are not natural, granted by a Creator or fished out of a river. They only exist as defined by the people who have them and are willing to defend them.
Gunter
May 20, 2014 at 11:00 am
I think we are actually in near total agreement, with the possible exception that I think the rights are not dependent on being willing to defend them. (Admittedly, they will be trampled if undefended.) There are circumstances in which people have rights that they may be unable or unwilling to defend. The “rights” exist independent of their actions. Africans held as slaves were having their rights violated even though they were not actively fighting to defend themselves at every possible opportunity. Children are abused the world over, but are incapable of self defense or even conscious of “rights.”
I am beginning to understand why Russia enacted those laws against pro-gay propaganda.
I can’t believe you would dare to compare bankers to weasels. Weasels are adorable and important animals that improve their ecosystems by controlling the population of rodents. I would say we need far more weasels and far fewer bankers.
Oh-oh—here comes the pro-weasel cyber-mob. Soon, I’ll be living out of a box. I hereby issue the following heartfelt statement:
“I profusely apologize for any weasels I might have offended by my remarks, which in no way reflect my actual beliefs, thoughts, or sentiments. Indeed, I feel that my offensive statements were the debilitating consequence of subliminal programming as a result off too many viewings of Disney’s “The Wind in the Willows,” and “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”, both of which include stereotypical negative representations of weasels, which were villains in both films. I call for the destruction of all copies of these politically incorrect movies, and will be suing the Disney Corp. in a multi-million dollar class action suit on behalf of all the children who were damaged, as I was.
Similarly, I call on the makers of “Independence Day” to excise the ugly and prejudiced line where the President fires the Sec. of Defense after calling him a “sniveling little weasel.”
Together, we can eradicate anti-weasel bigotry from the minds and hearts of all Americans!”
Heh, that’s a pretty good impersonation of the grievance bullies.
Oh no, you blow with the wind too . . . first you’re against the weasels, then you’re for the weasels – if they’re a special kind of weasel that fits in you’re mold of what you think a weasel should be.
And really for your apology to mean anything at all, shouldn’t it be spoken in front of cameras with a few tears thrown in for good measure?
I guess you’re only 9 kinds of awesome now.
I’m going to send you a bill for all the keyboards I am destroying by spewing coffee and/or beer on them. By the way, you just made my wife’s and my list of the Ten People I Would Most Like To Have Dinner And A Conversation With.
Hey wait a minute! Isn’t your first line a Pazuzu defense?
Sure was. The statement would be a question on my ethics test–identify the ethical breaches.
Oh no, now you’re down to 8 kinds of awesome.
Uh-oh. I failed to cleanse the Demon Pazuzu from the site with holy water. I guess this calls for the fire treatment.
I think we are actually in near total agreement, with the possible exception that I think the rights are not dependent on being willing to defend them. (Admittedly, they will be trampled if undefended.) There are circumstances in which people have rights that they may be unable or unwilling to defend. The “rights” exist independent of their actions. Africans held as slaves were having their rights violated even though they were not actively fighting to defend themselves at every possible opportunity. Children are abused the world over, but are incapable of self defense or even conscious of “rights.”