NightFox
Wildling
Yeah which probably explains why I don't believe (and never have believed) that government (or anybody else) has the authority to force anyone to provide goods and services to ANYONE against their will (no matter what their reasons for such a denial of service is).Paypal didn't take anything away from the people of North Carolina since those jobs never "belonged" to the people of North Carolina, Paypal management is well within their rights not to setup shop in NC (or anywhere else) for whatever reason they see fit. You may not agree with their reasons (which is fine) but attempting to argue against their right to do it and claiming that Paypal "took something away" from somebody is just irrational.This is a dangerous practice of businesses getting involved in politics. These companies are practicing a brand of discrimination on their own. I see no difference between the baker who refuses to bake a cake and paypal who takes 400 jobs away from the people of North Carolina.
The cakes never belonged to the same sex couple either. See how that works.
You seem to have missed that fact that PayPal isn't in business to provide people with a living and it's well within it's rights and the boundaries of proper conduct not to do business in any particular location for whatever reason the management of the company deems appropriate.In fact, what PayPal did is worse. But those 400 jobs would go to people to support their families, feed their kids and put them through school.
This isn't anything new, the vast majority of business operate within a set of established rules of corporate conduct and decorum which (at times) involves assessing the impact of government policies on what they might deem as having an "unseemly" effect on their corporate image or run counter to their corporate principles, PayPal made it's decision based on that and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with them doing it.
AGAIN, PayPal didn't "take away" anything since those jobs don't belong to the people of NC. It's no different than you refusing to frequent XYZ establishment because you don't agree with the way it's run, in which case would you say that you are "taking away" the money that you would have spent there from the owners?It's more of the, "If you don't agree with me I'll take away your ability to make a living".