> Companies are not supposed to be a way by which you enforce your moral beliefs.
Says who? I don't know about your ethical system, but mine certainly doesn't demand that I confine ethics to one sphere and never let it touch the others. Indeed, such an ethical system sounds completely broken to me.
Your ethical system is impractical and toxic. Your ethical system works by way of forcing your views on others. Perhaps if you were denied access to services,businesses,jobs,etc... Because of your ethical system you can appreciate the problem?
"I can treat you this way but you can't treat me the same way" sounds hypocritical does it not? You're right so you get to discriminate be intoletant and harm others,is that what you're saying? If you're so right let us use established systems of society to codify your beliefs,don't use your influence amd wallet to twist arms like a coward against those who lack your power and influence.
A system where people don't arm-twist and harm each other but use civilized discussion and peaceful discourse to patiently bring about desired change is what I support.
I do not support using your power as an employer, business owner,boss, monopoly(google) and other positions of power and influence to force others to practice your beliefs! I bet you would lose your mind if a religious person enforcef their religious beliefs the same way or if the people you disagree with did the same thing.
With your way,it is not the voice of who is right or of the majority that prevails but the strongest and most powerful win. And with your way phsyical violence and war are inevitable. Like ghandi said,be the change you wish to see. And tell others with your lowdest most peaceful voice,that's peaceful change. If that don't work for you then use violence and arm-twisting like this and let history repeat once more.
> A system where people don't arm-twist and harm each other but use civilized discussion and peaceful discourse to patiently bring about desired change is what I support.
But yet some regressive herd action always ends up carrying the current day, only to be lamented twenty years later, when a different but philosophically-similar goal will carry.
You wouldn't say that an individual choosing to not work at a specific company was "impractical" or "toxic", nor would you say that a small business avoiding a certain type of client was either. The real measure is when it becomes coercive.
Your comment is getting traction because red-flavor-thinking has been put in the position of pushing back against powerful corporations censoring individual speech. One of the justifications from the power-cheerleaders is "voluntary association", completely ignoring the power imbalance. And so the overall concept of voluntary association takes collateral damage despite being valid when applied honestly.
You wouldn't say that an individual choosing to not work at a specific company was > "impractical" or "toxic", nor would you say that a small business avoiding a certain type of client was either. The real measure is when it becomes coercive.
Voluntary association is a legal right but not associating based on political affiliation I am pretty sure is illegal and if not it should be. It is coercion when employees protest a company's business partners,they are using their high demand skills that got them employed to advance personal political ends. They are using their collective power to coerce business decisions in order to harm their political opposition.
> Perhaps if you were denied access to services,businesses,jobs,etc...
The right to refuse service to customers, and birth control to employees, on the basis of religious belief of business owners, has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court.
That is one interpretation of several pages of judicial thought. Although not disagreeable, it throws out a lot of the subtleties about why the decisions were made and what specific circumstances and conflicting rights contributed to that decision.
Looking at the cases you linked, I suspect if GCP were to deny services to gay people or abortion service providers the courts would determine that circumstances were different.
> The right to refuse service to customers, and birth control to employees, on the basis of religious belief of business owners, has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court.
Says who? I don't know about your ethical system, but mine certainly doesn't demand that I confine ethics to one sphere and never let it touch the others. Indeed, such an ethical system sounds completely broken to me.