(PoliticalLookout.com) – If there’s one thing that may get state governments to change their viewpoints, it’s good old-fashioned threats from big business.
Major companies such as Amazon, Apple, Capital One, Ikea, American Airlines, Airbnb, PayPal, Microsoft, Uber and Nestle have all signed a letter threatening to boycott any states that adopt any legislation that works against the transgender agenda. This includes laws regarding minors “transitioning” all the way to laws that ban female athletes playing against males.
The letter — organized by the Human Rights Campaign and Freedom for All Americans Education Fund — states the signatories are “deeply concerned” by state laws that “would affect access to medical care for transgender people, parental rights, social and family services, student sports, or access to public facilities such as restrooms.” They’re also concerned about laws that might “unnecessarily and uncharitably single out already marginalized groups for additional disadvantage.”
The letter goes on to say these bills “seek to put the authority of state government behind discrimination and promote mistreatment of a targeted LBGTQ populations.” All of this “directly affects our business” because it makes it “exceedingly difficult for us to recruit the most qualified candidates for jobs” and places “substantial burdens on the families of our employees.”
The letter threatens that states that don’t accept supposed gender fluidity “can influence our decisions … where to invest and grow.”
While the letter doesn’t specifically mention any laws by name, it does make reference to some regarding minors and transitioning. However, these laws were put in place to actually safeguard minors from going forward with surgeries or taking chemicals that would be irreversible — before they’re able to truly understand the long-term ramifications of what they’d be doing.
In addition, the laws protect the safety and privacy of girls and women, specifically, from having to share restrooms and/or locker rooms with males, for example.
Regardless of these companies’ viewpoints, and whether they are off base or not, the fact remains that threatened boycotts that are politically motivated hardly ever work out the way the companies want them to. As the Washington Times has written:
“Many economists doubt the effect of such politically motivated boycotts. In 2012, for example, boycotts of Chick-fil-A for its CEO’s announced position to same-sex marriage spurred a so-called ‘buycott’ of customer support that generated long lines for the company’s restaurants.”
While this boycott isn’t exactly the same — since it’s the businesses doing the threatening and not the consumer — the effect could end up working out the same way. If a person likes their state laws regarding the LGBTQ agenda, for example, they may choose to not buy an Apple iPhone and go with their competitors’ products instead.
Businesses have to be careful when they decide to enter themselves into the political arena, because you never know who you might anger with what you say. That’s why it’s probably a good idea for them to stay on the sideline and keep out of controversial agendas like this one.