Ethics Dunces: PayPal, And Those Applauding Its Unethical Grandstanding

PayPal-logo-1

The online payments company PayPal announced that it is cancelling plans to open an office in Charlotte, North Carolina because the state’s so-called “bathroom law” “violates PayPal values.” Dan Schulman, PayPal’s president and chief executive, wrote in a statement this week:

“The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture. As a result, PayPal will not move forward with our planned expansion into Charlotte.”

My many knee-jerk progressive Facebook friends immediately slapped their seal-flippers together and barked their approval in unison. “I (heart) PayPal!” more than one wrote. “PayPal is my hero!” wrote others.

Never mind that a corporation has no business using financial muscle to exercise extra-legal vetoes over legislation in states where it is not a citizen and where the actual citizens, in their legal exercise of their rights, have elected representatives who duly passed it. This cheering on excessive and abusive influence on governance by big corporations is especially hypocritical coming from supporters of Bernie and Hillary, who regularly claim that allowing companies the right to engage in political speech magically robs voters of their ability to reason and causes all to vote, zombie-like, according to corporate America’s will.

This is why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are leading…wait, that doesn’t make sense, does it? Actually none of the popular and media attacks on Citizens United are grounded in reality, law, or comprehension of the Constitution, and virtually none of the indignant opponents of the decision have read it or listened to the revealing oral argument. But I digress. The point is that the progressives endorse the practice of corporations using their power to warp the system in directions progressives like, but believe that this—this meaning bullying, threats and coercion— is the only form of influence that should be allowed—certainly not speech and advocacy.

That is just half of what makes the cheering for PayPal foolish and cynical. For PayPal is playing these people like a harpsichord, and indulging in outrageous, hypocritical grandstanding. Moving an office into North Carolina where the bathroom privileges of trans citizens are being restricted “violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture,” but somehow…

PayPal partnered with a Middle East payment company, Network International, to open an office in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. Being gay is a crime there, and  penalty for  those convicted of being gay or performing gay sex is death.

PayPal has offices in Moscow, where LGBT teens have been ambushed and humiliated by vigilante mobs, and where supporters of gay charities have been blinded and beaten with baseball bats. Last Fall,   a law that would require local police forces to kidnap the children of gay parents nearly passed. All of Russia is pervaded by homophobia.

PayPal has a regional headquarters in Istanbul, Turkey, where 89 percent of trans women who have been detained had been assaulted. Trans women are frequently murdered by strangers, and often mutilated. The murder of homosexuals in honor killings is widespread. LGBT organizations and websites are under constant attack, and Amnesty International has reported that homophobia is prevalent at all levels of society.

PayPal has an office in Chennai, India, where being caught kissing a member of the same sex carries a potential prison sentence.

PayPal has an office in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,  Human Rights Watch reports “that transgender persons face arbitrary arrest, physical and sexual assault, imprisonment, discriminatory denial of health care and employment, and other abuses.”

Let us also chastise most news sources which reported PayPal’s false piety without pointing out this stunning hypocrisy.

To summarize, PayPal only sets out to bully governments in its own country, because it thinks this grandstanding for LGBT rights will have business benefits. It couldn’t care less about the abuse of LGBT individuals, because it happily does business in cultures that treat them like animals, criminals and dirt.

Let me hear that applause!

________________________

Source: Rick Moran

 

63 Comments

Filed under Around the World, Business & Commercial, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement, Rights

63 responses to “Ethics Dunces: PayPal, And Those Applauding Its Unethical Grandstanding

  1. Thanks, Jack. Good information.

  2. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Of course it’s all about money. Principled people of any kind are few and far between, and all companies are concerned with is their bottom line. If they can make money in the US by grandstanding and standing foursquare behind the gay community they will, and if they can make still more money by doing business overseas where non-American gay people get punished with a hot poker up the gazoo, they’ll do that too, and shrug all the way to the bank.

    • charlesgreen

      Steve-O, you know it’s a little more complicated than that. It’s not ALL about the money – and neither is it ONLY about the money.

      When you’re running a global business, you have to take a stand where you can, and swallow it where you can’t. If every American company stood purely on principle, then Microsoft and Apple wouldn’t be in China, Argentina, Moscow or pretty much any place but Denmark and Canada.

      Incidentally, you should know that PayPal’s CEO Schulman is a fellow New Jersey-ite of yours. And, he’s been a social activist since high school; supported McGreavey for governor when he was running Virgin Mobile Cellular, and supported various local activist programs while with AT&T before that.

      I’m not saying that to justify his policies or personality – I’ve always found him a little sanctimonious – but to say you can’t fairly accuse him of cynicism. For what it’s worth, he comes by his activism honestly. I don’t doubt that he grits his teeth at doing business in Moscow.

      • Thissler

        You can’t stand on principle sometimes or only when it is advantageous. That’s part of ethics. You are, or you aren’t. Global or local it makes no difference. Obviously the core principle is money.

  3. Inquiring Mind

    What does it say about the Left in this country that they are more angry about a small business that is only asking not to be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding than they are about the far worse things that get done elsewhere?

  4. Beth

    Government and business always will be intertwined. Zoning, tax incentives, etc. This is the free market at work. It is perfectly acceptable for any business to say “no” to any state or city that doesn’t agree with its philosophy.

    • I’m in agreement here, Beth, I guess it’s just the grandstanding about it that’s obnoxious? I don’t spend money at places whose business practices bug me. I don’t broadcast it on the news, and pretty much, no one cares if I don’t eat at Chick-Fil-A except my daughter, who agrees in principle but wants to go to Spirit Night for her school. But I also prefer this quieter corporate speech about not expanding without money to lobbyists and Congress. But I also didn’t know about some of the above world-wide issues and specifics. Ouch.
      The seal-flippers comment made me think ouch and ha at the same time, Jack.

      • Beth

        I don’t like the corporations grandstanding about this either, but it is their right to do so. They are getting media attention which = free publicity for their client base.

        • Neil Dorr

          Beth,
          Solid point. Moral choices by companies can (and often do) affect their bottom line, and making business decisions based on the former can (and often is) in pursuit of the latter.

          -Neil

    • That assumes it IS their philosophy, which in this case it surely isn’t, and that the act isn’t used as a form of extortion, which, in the context of what happened in Georgia, is was and is.

      • Beth

        If I were a corporation who wanted to open another regional office, this is something I would consider. What if I had one or more LGBT employees that would need to be transferred to start up that office? Would I face potential litigation for forcing them to move to a location where there are laws that might adversely affect them? Wouldn’t it be easier to just build that office in another state?

        Also, re the coercion factor, well corporations do that all the time. Look at House of Cards. It is filmed in Baltimore, not DC, because Baltimore gave Netflix better tax incentives. That is how governments and businesses interact.

  5. Rick M.

    Must be a broken jaw somewhere in the company bunker after the knee jerk was so violent it busted some corporate hack up real bad.

  6. Wayne

    What hypocracy! Although I believe North Carolina’s bathroom law was poorly written by a group of legislators who dislike gays and transgenders, it seems to me that a guy who “identifies themselves as a woman” and wants to use the woman’s bathroom because he “feels uncomfortable in the men’s” is unfair to the women who want some privacy. I’m sure some hetro guys would use this policy as a way to get a look at women with their undies down.

    • luckyesteeyoreman

      I agree, Wayne. I would love to see more signs on restroom doors that say, “Behind this door is a penis-free zone,” or that have some universal-looking cartoon that says the same. The familiar “slash-through” sign – a red circle around “PENISES” in big, bold black letters, with the red “slash,” might work almost as well as if there was an illustrated phallus inside the circle…

    • charlesgreen

      You’ve got me wondering what’s been going on these past years BEFORE this legislation got passed.

      I guess since there used to be nothing to prevent it, there must have been TONS of hetero guys “trying to get a look at women with their undies down,” right? Especially those weird trans-gendered people who went so far as to get hormone treatment and wear dresses and wear their hair long – just so they could get their hetero-in-the-closet jollies by sneaking into women’s rooms. Why, those Caitlin Jenner types.

      Fortunately that’s all prevented now: the onslaught is over.

      Now they’re right back where they belong: in the men’s room, with their dresses and high heels and bras.

      Nobody’s going to bother them there, I’m sure.

  7. Rick M.

    My wife – The Lovely Cynthia – is quite liberal on social issues but this one? She values her privacy and if a “male” decided to enter her domain (the ladies room) she would go screaming down the hallway.

  8. This whole bathroom gender thing could be solved by having ONE bathroom for both (all) sexes with real doors and stalls that provide complete privacy. I always thought separate bathrooms was silly. Just make private stalls! It would save businesses having to install and maintain two separate facilities as well.

    • Wayne

      Very bad idea ladies. Exhibit A: “Harry and Kumar go to White Castle” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rDQNcXAj0

    • I am agreeable with a truly private, “unisex” room for each user – no need for any gender signs. I can’t stomach being in a room with multiple toilets for common use by any gender. I don’t want to be out in public, and yet have no choice but to be in the same room with a female who is not my wife, while using a toilet. I’ll climb into a dumpster, or try to hide in a hedgerow, before I’ll do that. I would hope that most married men would think the same, out of consideration for their (female) spouses and other mens’ female spouses. Ask a woman who is married to a man: Do you really want some other man to say to yet some other man, “Wow, that lady’s a walking stink-bomb!”??! Do you expect your husband to be OK with a set-up that spurs talk like that?!

      • Lots of restaurants have started having ‘one-holers’ like these around here (DC area). Sometimes only ONE for the whole place, which I take issue with on the sheer numbers scale. One-holers that are gender-neutral don’t bug me. But I am also of the opinion that THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION about who you pee next to is so stupid. It’s a restroom for the public. You won’t be alone. And as a female, I’ve seen females who freaked me out, and it wasn’t because I was confused about their gender ID, it was because of their behavior. You can’t create a crazy-free restroom. I’d REALLY like to see a restroom bill somewhere that imposed sanctions for people who pee/otherwise on the seat and don’t wipe it up. And/or people who don’t flush. AND don’t wash their hands. But that’s not going to happen…

        • luckyesteeyoreman

          You can’t create a crazy-free restroom, but you can create a crazy-isolating restroom, and have it available for the public. Becky, I think we are mostly in agreement. I’ll strive to remember that term you used – “one-holer.”

          • I could not care less if some woman or man is judgemental of my elimination. Their problem, not mine. We all do it. Why are we so uptight about it?

            My son lives in Tokyo and he says many of the public restrooms there have the bidet toilets with “sound masking” music and push button deodorant spray for those too bashful to leave the kids at the pool in a public restroom. He is now not quite sure he could ever return to American toilets and toilet paper mess after experiencing nice Japanese restrooms. He says they often combine the sublime and the ridiculous in one room though, with modern, bidet digital toilets alongside the squat over floor toilets that the older folks prefer. He also says most Japanese restrooms are meticulously clean and people don’t vandalize or trash them up like is all too often seen in the US.

            • it’s pee and poop, Jack, in private stalls. it’s not an ethics debate. Clean up after yourself. Don’t flush things that should not be flushed (ladies), or too much solids at once, give a courtesy flush if needed, and don’t pee all over the seat (men and women who “hover”). If you do miss, be mindful of other users and clean it up. I don’t see what gender has to do with it.

            • So if something doesn’t bother you, the feelings of anyone else that differ don’t matter. Is that your theory? Do unto others as you wouldn’t mind if it was done unto you.

              I think you have to stay back this year in ethics school.

              • LISA WEBER replied (the comment was inadvertently lost):

                it’s pee and poop, Jack, in private stalls. it’s not an ethics debate. Clean up after yourself. Don’t flush things that should not be flushed (ladies), or too much solids at once, give a courtesy flush if needed, and don’t pee all over the seat (men and women who “hover”). If you do miss, be mindful of other users and clean it up. I don’t see what gender has to do with it.”

                • Thanks for restoring it. Probably my mistake.

                  I am reminded when there used to be separate facilities for “whites” and “colored”, and how many people weren’t comfortable sharing.

                  • Separating genders in bathrooms has been preferred by both sexes, and has never been challenged on “separate but equal” terms…and I’d advise women to watch out. My default position is to see all gender distinctions wiped out…that means strength and speed standards for the armed services, police and firefighters, all gender divided sports, everything. There are either standards and accommodations that recognize biological differences, or not. If not, fine. But you can’t have both. And say goodbye to women’s basketball, golf, tennis, boxing, track and field, swimming and soccer, because once it’s all the same and unsegregated, they are gone…and so are 98% of the women who will have to compete.

                    • Fine with me. I’m in agreement that vital physical standards should not be lowered for women. You forget I worked in an almost all male industry, doing exactly the same hard physical work they did (even through two pregnancies) for almost 20 years, and earned the respect of my industry for it. Then I invented a product to make the work easier for all of us and opened the door for more women and those over “a certain age”. Then when a large franchise, owned by a huge multi-national corporation, got worried that the product would give their competition an advantage in the market, they sued me for patent infringement in an out of state court. I was forced to represent myself and after seven hellish years and tons of mistakes, facing an attorney who was pushing for “coercive incarceration” for civil contempt, I won. Women can be just as tough and physically strong as men.

                      Sports, meh…I think professional and collegiate sports are WAY overrated. I wouldn’t shed a tear if both women’s and men’s went away tomorrow.

                • My reply to LISA:

                  So you aren’t bothered by bodily functions around strangers of the opposite sex. Bully for you. Other people are, and have every right to feel so. And in teh fair balancing of rights, making thousands and thousands of people uncomfortable because a rare individual with a rare problem doesn’t want to feel uncomfortable is bad ethics. Making the many suffer for the convenience of the very, very few. That’s tyranny of the minority, and it is NOT ethical. Of course its an ethics debate—trade-offs like taht are at the core of ethics. And what you happen to find inoffensive or not inconvenient doesn’t settle the issue. It just makes your opinion irrelevant.

  9. Neil Dorr

    Jack,
    Morality aside, a corporation has a legal right to open (or not open) an office anywhere it wants to for any reason, correct? And a person can choose not to associate with anyone or any group for any reason as well, correct? I understand these are legal distinctions, but considering they’re also paramount to the Bill of Rights and the core of “American Values,” this would seem to place PayPal on something approaching firm ethical ground as well.

    Would it be bullying if North Carolina passed tax regulations that were unfavorable to their business model? I understand that one is a business decision and the other is a social policy decision, but I’m confused as to what makes one more ethical than the other. Perhaps PayPal is trying to court more progressive customers, in which case making a stand in this case makes them more appealing to said consumers. What if market research showed that taking a stand on big issues was likely to result in increased market share? Besides, this is about them choosing not to open a branch as opposed to closing an existing one — the latter of which would seem far more coercive. No one is getting laid off, no jobs are being lost; they’re simply not being creating.

    As to your other examples, I’m not sure how pointing out PayPal’s hypocrisy makes any difference. Just because someone (or some entity) takes selective stands on an issue doesn’t make the stands they do take wrong (I feel like you made a similar point with regard to the Lewanowsky prosecution). Obviously this decision has everything to do with North Carolina being in the news and Dubai being a forgotten Mid-East backwater but, again, so what? Companies and people use specific examples of “wrongs” as an opportunity to grand-stand all the time.

    This is what I’ve never understood about your knee-jerk reaction to boycotts; they’re simply people and groups voting with dollars instead of a ballots. What makes people choosing not to spend money at Wal-mart because of their use of sweat-shop labor different than the same group refusing to vote for a candidate because (s)he wouldn’t pass tougher labor restrictions? Both have similar unintended consequences — Wal-mart losing market shared and being forced to lay off workers, and the candidate’s party losing political clout while (s)he’s forced to lay off their campaign/policy staff if they lose.

    Please understand, I don’t agree with PayPal’s decision, but that’s the point — it’s ultimately theirs (not mine) to make. Would it make me just as bad them if I were to start using SquareCash (or any of their competitors) instead because of it?

    [Please note the veritable cornucopia of questions marks scattered throughout the above — all of which indicate questions I’m unsure of the answers to, not arguments that demand harsh rebuttal. Thus, anything you can do to avoid words like “stupid,” “ignorant,” or “trained seal” would be greatly appreciated.]

    -Neil

    • Taking the easy one first: “I’m not sure how pointing out PayPal’s hypocrisy makes any difference. Just because someone (or some entity) takes selective stands on an issue doesn’t make the stands they do take wrong.”

      Huh? As written, you agree that it’s hypocritical. Pointing out hypocrisy means that a given stand is insincere, as in “a lie.” Pointing out that a public position is a lie means that it does not warrant praise. So…to spit in the eye of Godwin’s Law, if the evil nazi officer in “Schindler’s List” saves one Jew to impress someone, that is an ethical act even if he continues to kill other Jews. Fine. But if he makes a public statement saying that his values made him save that Jew and he is true to his values even as he continues to kill Jews, that is dishonest and manipulative. And obviously so.

      And that’s exactly what PayPal is doing.

      As for the first issue: Paypal has a right to move out of a state in reactions to state laws that negatively impact PayPal. However, as a corporation that isn’t in the state, and is not impacted, it is unethical for it to threaten, extort, coerce or in any way use its power to interfere with the democratic process. It can lobby like anyone else. It can argue. But if all corporations set out to control city and state governments by using boycotts to bend legislation to their will, they could, easily, and in so doing make democracy and citizen rule impossible. And laws would have to be passed….because ethics would have failed. That’s the usefulness of Kant’s “if everybody did it” test.

      By the way, I am not arguing that PayPal shouldn’t do business in gay-hating countries. Controlling social and human rights policies abroad is not its job or duty.

      • Wait, you mean large corporations and businesses DON’T use their money and tax base to control and manipulate city and state governments? Please.

        • What’s your point? If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. Your argument is because there is one form of corrupt manipulation, anything goes? That two wrongs make a shrug? What?

          • Beth

            Wait — is there a Bernie disciple in our midst? Jack, a corporation can move wherever it wants, make whatever it wants, try to manipulate the markets, etc. That’s the nature of a corporation — any corporation every day makes decisions that hurt certain segments of people, but those same decisions are also helping their employees and investors.

            Pfizer pulled out the Allergan deal this week because of potential changes to U.S. tax law. That decision was devastating to many people in Ireland because they were looking forward to a behemoth corporation moving there, but probably great for certain Americans who are now going to retain their jobs.

            You can’t start judging good corporate manipulation vs. bad corporate manipulation — the only exception being breaking actual laws.

            • Sure I can. In fact, I teach corporate ethics. You just said that all that matters is whether or not they break the law. Corporate ethics hold otherwise.

              • Beth

                I don’t like corporations either. But their very existence is to benefit the shareholders. That is the code in place. They can’t break the law, but they can do whatever they want within the confines of the law in order to increase shareholder dividends.

                For what it is worth, my “I win the lottery” dream is to set up a small, privately held corporation that never goes public. Rather, its goal would be to pay its workers live-able wages and to make a great product.

                • And John Kenneth Galbraith—my college economics professor!— concluded that stockholders benefit tangibly from holding stock in companies that are perceived as “good” rather than “evil.” I think he overstated it, but he was still right.

                  I don’t dislike corporations at all. A big one—Altria— gave my ethics business a huge boost. I worked for the US Chamber for 6 years. I dislike it when they misbehave. They don’t have to.

          • No! My point is we should eliminate all of it. I must be poor at expressing sarcasm.

  10. If PayPal is actually taking a moral stand on this issue and they don’t want to be viewed as blatant hypocrites, then they MUST pull out of any place that has laws that are either equal to or worse than the one that is “forcing” them to back out of North Carolina.

    Personally I think this is nothing but a publicity stunt, it’s one that will bring PayPal’s hypocrisy to the forefront of public knowledge and it might just backfire on PayPal.

    • charlesgreen

      Look up Dan Schulman in Wikipedia. It’s not a publicity stunt, it’s his beliefs. That’s not saying he’s right or wrong, or taking a position on the ethical issues that Jack raises – just pointing it is NOT “a publicity stunt.”

  11. zoebrain

    What the NC legislature did has “signature significance” to use your own phrase, Jack.

    You may have a point that PayPal should not have given them a chance to repent and go and sin no more, just withdrawn completely.

    You’ve never bought anything from, say, China have you? Or India? Or Malaysia? Aiding and abetting the regimes there?

    Exactly how great a chance do you think PayPal would have of influencing the situation in any of the countries you mentioned. Should that mean they must also do nothing in places where they might ameliorate what most people agree is a bad situation?

    What about the pharmaceutical firm, whose founder and CEO just invested $100M in NC, and is now, quietly, and without publicity, taking steps to withdraw without taking too much of a financial bath, to protect stockholders in what is now a company listed on the stock exchange. Should she now be considered “unethical” for doing this?

    She’s Trans, BTW. So, according to the Governor’s recent statement on the Family Research Council’s webcast, a “pervert and a pedophile” as are all such people. A danger to the community. He says one thing to one audience, another to another, as do most politicians. Telling the rubes what they want to hear. Tony Perkins, the head of the FRC, has just been appointed to the Republican National Committee, so expect more attempts to implement their stated policy of legal persecution of Trans and Intersex people, passing ever more restrictive laws to remove rights granted since 1955.

    The problem is my own bias of course, but I think the facts speak for themselves.

    • “What about the pharmaceutical firm, whose founder and CEO just invested $100M in NC, and is now, quietly, and without publicity, taking steps to withdraw without taking too much of a financial bath, to protect stockholders in what is now a company listed on the stock exchange. Should she now be considered “unethical” for doing this?”

      It depends. If the objective is the best interests of the company in her view, it’s ethical and responsible. If it is part of a corporate boycott organized to make the state pass laws in opposition to the will of voters, making them choose extortion over the ballot box, sure it’s unethical.

      I don’t see how you or anyone can argue that the PayPal statement about values was grandstanding, dishonest bullshit. No, I don’t hold companies responsible for what other regimes do until those companies are using slave labor to make their products. I do hold companies responsible that make sweeping statement of principle that they violate abroad, like Google allowing the Chinese government to censor their search engine. This is in the same category. PayPal is no hero here.

      • zoebrain

        It’s about protecting employees travelling from out of state via NC airports, or having to meet in government buildings – employees including the CEO and founder.

        That may not be in the best financial interests of the stockholders, as she no longer owns all the shares. If they think so, they can vote her out of course. Everything’s been done very quietly to get maximum price on the assets that aren’t being moved, and to get the best price at a new location.

        Jewish business in Germany in 1932 under Hindenberg faced similar issues, though even though they didn’t know it at the time, rather more serious ones than just mild animus and discrimination (in 1933 things got very rapidly worse). Possibly a better, certainly less over-the-top comparison, is Indian-owned businesses in Uganda when Idi Amin took power, but even that goes too far.

        The concern is that HB2 might be just the first step, as the FRC claims it is. They’ve already managed to get a similar bill in TN resurrected out of committee, and have plans for more extensive changes to the law should this one not be struck down by the courts. Once Trans and Intersex people are recognised as “pedophiles and perverts”, the same strictures as for other sex offenders regarding where they can live – strictures already found to be acceptable by courts even on those having served their sentences – could be imposed, and might pass judicial muster under “rational basis”, despite Romer vs Evans.

        Likely? I don’t think so. A possibility? Yes.

        Tell me Jack – if 12 months ago, someone had said that the HB2 situation, passed by a special session in such an unorthodox way and containing so many radical provisions was a distinct possibility, would you have considered them irrationally paranoid? I would.

  12. It is an organization’s right to open offices and do business where it chooses. In saying that, it has the right not to do business within an environment where it feels that the laws and indeed, the morals of that environment, do not align with those of the organization. Whether it is doing so motivated by some sort of macabre sense of political correctness, or whether to score free advertising is really irrelevant.
    It is up to the states, in this case, North Carolina, to determine whether it will compromise its own standards and choose to rescind that law. However, it is also up to the individual businesses to choose what type of services and products that they offer, and to whom. Can we force people to work for those with whom they do not share similar beliefs? Do the business owners sign some sort of Hippocratic oath? We cannot force everybody to do everything and anything for everyone. That would surely be unethical and immoral and could even possibly be in violation of the 13th amendment. So let private businesses choose whom they want to serve, after all, they will be the ones losing income.
    And is saying that, let private businesses choose where they want to open offices and do business, it will all blow over in a few weeks if we let it.

    • Citizens have a RIGHT to put all black, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Armenian businesses out of business too, by organizing and refusing to patronize them. They don’t sign “some kind of Hippocratic oath” either. That doesn’t mean such conduct wouldn’t be horribly wrong. It is the same with companies attacking cities and states on the basis of laws they had no role in making, and in which they have no role. Again—leaving a state of cancelling a project is the company’s prerogative. Hijacking the democratic process by financial extortion is a right, but we don’t want corporations using their muscle that way, and the only way to prevent it is to call it wrong whatever the law is they are trying to manipulate.

  13. It is an organization’s right to open offices and do business where it chooses. In saying that, it has the right not to do business within an environment where it feels that the laws and indeed, the morals of that environment, do not align with those of the organization. Whether it is doing so motivated by some sort of macabre sense of political correctness, or whether to score free advertising is really irrelevant.
    It is up to the states, in this case, North Carolina, to determine whether it will compromise its own standards and choose to rescind that law. However, it is also up to the individual businesses to choose what type of services and products that they offer, and to whom. Can we force people to work for those with whom they do not share similar beliefs? Do the business owners sign some sort of Hippocratic oath? We cannot force everybody to do everything and anything for everyone. That would surely be unethical and immoral and could even possibly be in violation of the 13th amendment. So let private businesses choose whom they want to serve, after all, they will be the ones losing income.
    And is saying that, let private businesses choose where they want to open offices and do business, it will all blow over in a few weeks if we let it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s