Why conservatives are boycotting paypal

[KCfromNC]

How about if they had a reasonable expectation that their actions would shine the light on the lesser situation but go ignored in the more drastic case? Does not the idea of actually being effective make more sense?

I'd also be curious to know if there were any plans to open an office in Saudi Arabia like there were in NC. Or is it that there's no comparison and the outrage is all made up - the equivalent of "your company doesn't go bankrupt trying to eliminate world hunger therefore any smaller effort they make is hypocrisy". Or "your company isn't actively involved in plots to overthrow the governments of China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, therefore any comment they make about human rights is hypocrisy". I'm sure there's a name for that logical fallacy, but it sure is a stretch to find something to complain about here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Businesses should stick with bettering their products and prices.

Should they also be able choose where they locate their business, as Paypal is doing here?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Paypal refuses to do business with anybody living in NC because of a law the state government passed. Do you really think every single person in NC fights to keep transexuals out of their preferred bathrooms?

They are not refusig to do business with people (God forbid they lose money) however it is very much like a parent punishing all their children for the misdeed of 1. It really is a very childish response.

 

[KCfromNC]

They are not refusig to do business with people (God forbid they lose money) however it is very much like a parent punishing all their children for the misdeed of 1. It really is a very childish response.

Compared to legislators calling a special legislative session and wasting a bunch of money just to throw a temper tantrum about which bathrooms people should use? Seems like Paypal is the mature one here.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Tell that to Hobby Lobby.

If a corporation can have a religion, they can also have morals... about time those two things went together, IMO.

Should they also be able choose where they locate their business, as Paypal is doing here?

They can do what they want, but when their motives are based in things disassociated with their business, people will talk. Or worse.

 

[The Cadet]

There is also some who think Nichole Kidman is also XY with AIS. If so, that makes Tom Cruise gay as he married him.

Speaking of things that become way more complex than they need to be all of a sudden: sexuality. I don't think it's that hard - if you are exclusively attracted to the form of the opposite sex in a general sense, you're heterosexual. Doesn't matter if that form has an XY-chromosome or used to have a penis; finding this attractive does not make you gay.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Compared to legislators calling a special legislative session and wasting a bunch of money just to throw a temper tantrum about which bathrooms people should use? Seems like Paypal is the mature one here.

I don't recall seeing a temper tantrum by the legislators.....any video of that? I have seen temper tantrums by the opposing side....plenty of video of that.....

 

[expos4ever]

Notwithstanding all the other interesting dimensions of this topic, I believe it is appropriate to point out that for-profit corporations are not in business to make moral judgments - they exist to make profit for shareholders and will do whatever they can legally do to achieve, with "conscience" or "morality" entirely irrelevant. So there is every reason to believe that paypal does what it does for one reason only: to maximize profit. Note that it appears that (in the US) CEOs are legally obliged to maximize profit:

Under eBay v. Newman, the law is as Franken said: “it is literally malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize its profits.” Just ask Jim and Craig; no one disputes it’s their company, but they’re legally prohibited from taking steps to preserve the profit-alongside-community-service mission that’s served them well. Maximize profits, or else.

So regardless of all the arguments on both sides of this controversial matter, I suggest that to believe paypal is acting on the basis of 'conscience' ranks up there with belief in the tooth fairy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is not bullying....this is how you get corporations attention....affect their bottom line and the CEO/COO/President will sit up and take notice....that is if they want to keep their jobs....

Yeah, I'm sure they're going to listen to a clutch of whinging social conservatives...

 

[Landon Caeli]

Yeah, I'm sure they're going to listen to a clutch of whinging social conservatives...

We shall see. They might not like losses.

...We are many.

(though, I don't consider myself a "social conservative"... I'm a traditionalist.)

 

[Four Angels Standing]

So you are claiming that if PayPal does not attempt to use it's influence in every location it operates to better LGBTQ causes it does not really believe in those causes? So until the US stops supporting China and Saudi Arabia we don't care about Human rights violations?

Non-Sequitur. You don't believe PayPal's excuse for supposedly pulling out of NC should reflect a consistent concern for human rights?
That's the issue here.

I am not aware of that. Currency has never struck me as alive.

Now you're being obtuse. We're done here.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We shall see. They might not like losses.

What losses? All 5 people who boycott PayPal?

 

[Landon Caeli]

What losses? All 5 people who boycott PayPal?

That's what paypal 'hopes'.

 

[expos4ever]

So you are claiming that if PayPal does not attempt to use it's influence in every location it operates to better LGBTQ causes it does not really believe in those causes?

Per an earlier post of mine, I suggest it is unrealistic to believe that paypal's actions - or the actions of any other corporation - are informed by considerations of morality: their only motive is profit.

 

[Belk]

Non-Sequitur. You don't believe PayPal's excuse for supposedly pulling out of NC should reflect a consistent concern for human rights?
That's the issue here.

I don't believe the idea that attempting to fix an issue in one area is negated or hypocrisy if they are not attempting to address things in all areas. That is why I don't call all Christians hypocrites because they buy items made in China even though China oppresses Christians.

Now you're being obtuse. We're done here.

Toodles.

 

[Belk]

Per an earlier post of mine, I suggest it is unrealistic to believe that paypal's actions - or the actions of any other corporation - are informed by considerations of morality: their only motive is profit.

I believe that looking at the people who run corporations as one dimensional personalities who are solely motivated by a single driving force over simplifies the situation. Certainly as a company they are motivated by profit but I find it unlikely it is the only motivator.

 

[Belk]

Absolutely and it has been pointed out more times than anyone can count; it IS very hypocritical.

Very well. From now on I shall hold Christians to this standard.

 

[Belk]

You don't understand how government works.

Odd, what with me working in government.

In Ohio we have concealed carry. Local ordinances that would affect that right are not allowed because that could cause someone to break the law simply by crossing a street. These types of laws are done in all states all the time.

Uh huh. How about if there was a local law to allow concealed carry and the state legislature created a law saying that no local laws allowing concealed carry would be allowed. Would you consider that an exercise of democracy and the will of the people?

 

[expos4ever]

I believe that looking at the people who run corporations as one dimensional personalities who are solely motivated by a single driving force over simplifies the situation. Certainly as a company they are motivated by profit but I find it unlikely it is the only motivator.

I would like to share your view but I am skeptical. I believe that, in the US at least, CEOs are legally obligated to maximize profits (see one of my earlier posts). This does not logically preclude the possibility of acting ethically, but it certainly reduces that motivation dramatically.

 

[Arcangl86]

I would like to share your view but I am skeptical. I believe that, in the US at least, CEOs are legally obligated to maximize profits (see one of my earlier posts). This does not logically preclude the possibility of acting ethically, but it certainly reduces that motivation dramatically.

To be ultra clear, CEOs of corporations incorporated in Delaware are legally obligated to maximize profits.