| I don't know if we just interpreted the parent differently, but I don't follow your reasoning. > The backlash against Obama was a weaponization of politics on a scale not seen since the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. Obama's a well-known politician. It would be pretty crazy to say we can't attack or protest our own government. I'd be interested in how you extracted this point from OP, because I completely missed it. > And your viewpoint feels especially ironic when a common conservative/libertarian argument against government interventions to advance civil rights is that the market will work it out. I also don't see the connection to government intervention. Businesses have the same rights as people to express their opinions, investors/owners willing. Obviously there's consequences to those actions, and certain SV startups are already on thin ice as far as their legal ability to operate is concerned. But it's up to the American constituency if they want to bring these issues to their representatives attention. > And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights. If a constituency doesn't like what a business is doing it is fully within the rights of the constituency to change to change the law. Despite the law, people tend to be really unsympathetic to wealthy businesses, and political lobbying law has been ripe to change for years. |