Governors, 'woke' or not, leave boycotts to consumers
By Froma Harrop / Creators.com
Californias governor has no business canceling Walgreens. But I could. Floridas governor has no business punishing Disney for disagreeing with him over his states Dont Say Gay bill. But people who agree with Ron DeSantis here can boycott Disney World.
There is a difference between government interference with a private companys legal activities and the right of consumers to not patronize said business.
However you or I define woke, we should not want politicians to interfere with business decisions because they dont like the executive suites views on social policy. As consumers, we can withhold our patronage of its products and services or increase it. As investors, we can put our money into companies whose values we share or take it out if we dont.
But pursuing a kind of authoritarian chic, right-wing politicos have stuck their unwanted noses into companies engaged in socially conscious investing. As cover for what is essentially socialist meddling, they argue that woke policies are bad for the bottom line.
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/harop-governors-woke-or-not-leave-boycotts-to-consumers/
Hiawatha Pete
(1,764 posts)California merely cancelled their contract with Walgreens - a business decision they, as a customer, had every right to make - same as any individual has with respect to which places they decide to patronize or not patronize. And for whatever reason they choose.
As per the statement in the article: "the right of consumers to not patronize said business" - The State of California is the consumer, Walgreens is the business.