Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The stance that they claim to be sooooooooooooooooooooooooo moral that they don't want to pay for health insurance for their workers that would provide contraception yet have NO problem buying cheap crap from a country that among other things supplies abortions on demand and marking that cheap crap up to ridiculous levels.
THAT stance!
Morality plays no part in the decision.
PayPal is like any big business; a big part of any decision like this has to take their employees and future employees into consideration as a major part of the decision making process.
The CEO and board doesn't care a bit about morality, and they don't care a bit whether a valuable employee is a trans, gay, or whatever, as long as the employee consistently makes money for PayPal, has a good record of job attendance, and isn't causing the company any problems inside the company itself.
North Carolina just created a big hornet's nest of problems for the companies that are already established there, and gave it a good kick afterwards to make the hornets very angry.
Now, any employee with a gripe can snitch that there's a tranny inside the company getting away with using the wrong bathroom, and whether true or not, could land his employer in state court defending itself. Even a fired employee could do that. As a former business owner, for a fact, no company wants to ever go to court on anything. Is that moral? Or immoral?
At the same time, the state just opened up itself to lawsuits being brought by private companies.
And counter-suits, both of which always have lotsa damages attached to them. Who is gonna pay the state's lawyer money?
The tax payers, of course. Never the politicians. Is that moral? Or immoral?
Moral or immoral? The answer is neither. Our business laws are amoral; anyone can sue any church of organized religion just as easily as suing a business or the state, or the federal government.
Trying to inject morality into this argument is stupid to the bone.
Last edited by banjomike; 04-26-2016 at 04:20 PM..
Deal PayPal,
How can you build your global operations center in MALAYSIA where LGBT
individuals are whipped and jailed, but you boycott North Carolina for enacting a law
requiring people to use a rest room consistent with their biological gender?
Shouldn't you be boycotting MALAYSIA rather than the people of North Carolina?
Paypal is going to try and dictate their view of how we should think, act, and use a bathroom here in the US where WE made them rich; only to build facilities in a place where these same trans people are jailed and beaten? Really?
People are becoming wack-a-moles for real, and Paypal is transparently inconsistent.
Paypal is going to try and dictate their view of how we should think, act, and use a bathroom here in the US where WE made them rich; only to build facilities in a place where these same trans people are jailed and beaten? Really?
People are becoming wack-a-moles for real, and Paypal is transparently inconsistent.
They decided not to build a facility there. So what? It's a business. How is that dictating how you should think and act.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
Morality plays no part in the decision.
PayPal is like any big business; a big part of any decision like this has to take their employees and future employees into consideration as a major part of the decision making process.
The CEO and board doesn't care a bit about morality, and they don't care a bit whether a valuable employee is a trans, gay, or whatever, as long as the employee consistently makes money for PayPal, has a good record of job attendance, and isn't causing the company any problems inside the company itself.
North Carolina just created a big hornet's nest of problems for the companies that are already established there, and gave it a good kick afterwards to make the hornets very angry.
Now, any employee with a gripe can snitch that there's a tranny inside the company getting away with using the wrong bathroom, and whether true or not, could land his employer in state court defending itself. Even a fired employee could do that. As a former business owner, for a fact, no company wants to ever go to court on anything. Is that moral? Or immoral?
At the same time, the state just opened up itself to lawsuits being brought by private companies.
And counter-suits, both of which always have lotsa damages attached to them. Who is gonna pay the state's lawyer money?
The tax payers, of course. Never the politicians. Is that moral? Or immoral?
Moral or immoral? The answer is neither. Our business laws are amoral; anyone can sue any church of organized religion just as easily as suing a business or the state, or the federal government.
Trying to inject morality into this argument is stupid to the bone.
I was referring to Hobby Lobby's stance which absolutely injected morality into their argument, but I agree, they are stupid to the bone and hypocritical as well.
I was referring to Hobby Lobby's stance which absolutely injected morality into their argument
Completely false. Hobby Lobby injected the exercise of their religion into their argument, which is both a First Amendment Right and an act guaranteed by the Federal RFRA law originally sponsored by a Democrat and signed into Law by Clinton:
My aging father-in-law uses public ladies rooms routinely because he needs his wife to help him with matters. I am not sure how many ladies are not comfortable with it, but sometimes in life you just have to put up with things which may make you little uncomfortable.
I am not sure what my father-in-law would do in NC, so I guess he better stay away from there, and he better hope this does not become a law in Florida, because if it does, he could never visit a restaurant again. Unfortunately for many aging people, getting out of the house is a big deal, and restaurants are the places to go for them.
My aging father-in-law uses public ladies rooms routinely because he needs his wife to help him with matters. I am not sure how many ladies are not comfortable with it, but sometimes in life you just have to put up with things which may make you little uncomfortable.
I am not sure what my father-in-law would do in NC
He and his wife would use the single occupancy Family facilities:
He and his wife would use the single occupancy Family facilities:
Even Target stores have them.
That's great that Targets have them, but 99% of restaurants do not. I can't think of a single one that does.
Does the law in NC punish the businesses if they do not enforce the law 100% of the time, or is it left to them to enforce, or not enforce?
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 04-27-2016 at 08:19 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
