[dom2]

I assume to tell the gay people in your life that you would rather they didn't exist? When you support money flowing to politicians who support policies like conversion camps, the message you are sending is clear. If Google or others want to convince politicians who support backwards policies to change their ways, they can still engage with them, but there is absolutely no need to financially support then.

[dang]

> I assume to tell the gay people in your life that you would rather they didn't exist?

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[imustbeevil]

> I assume to tell the gay people in your life that you would rather they didn't exist?

That's a weird assumption to make.

What I would assume is that the Senator has any other position that Google finds more profitable than an alternative Senator. It would be kind of crazy to think Google is directly supporting conversion therapy, or that anyone on this forum would.

[dom2]

These political donations have externalities beyond the single policy that a person, Google, or any company may be donating for. If Google absolutely had to donate to one of several politicians and this was the lesser evil, that would be understandable. This is not the case. Companies don't need to donate to have political influence: Apple doesn't and they do fine.

Supporting a politician financially who also happens to support conversion camps in the end is still supporting all those policies, whether or not that was the initial intent.