Reply to post: Re: Who vets the vets?

Blood money is fine with us, says GitLab: Vetting non-evil customers is 'time consuming, potentially distracting'

Ben Tasker Silver badge

Re: Who vets the vets?

I think you're confusing moral and legal here, resulting in a very blinkered view of reality.

It's quite possible for something legal to be immoral and vice-versa. Although morals can be far, far more subjective where the definition of legal is pretty strictly codified.

But, how does something normally become illegal in the first place? Because sufficient people have decided that it's immoral and have complained about it, driving lawmakers to pass a new bill to make it illegal.

Businesses withdrawing support from customers over immorality is a part of that. As a supplier you have the right to tell a customer to get stuffed because you don't like what they're doing with your product.

Would that not be undermining the courts in the world view you've written above?

Sticking with the US, how does that stack up against the 1A right to freedom of association, and freedom from forced speech?

Businesses cancelling supply sometimes to comes about because employees have spoken out internally. Can an employee demand that change (and expect to get it)? No. But they should definitely have the right to speak up.

*That* is what Gitlab is denying here.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019