> I won't even get into the impact on stockholders who buy the stock to, in general, make money with their investments not for social issues.

Several years ago, in response to a request that Apple commit to only agree to measures that wouldn't impact the bottom line, Tim Cook told an activist investor "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock." (It was in response to a question about Apple's environmental stance, but Tim likened it to a request to ignore accessibility issues.)

If I disagree with Paypal's disagreement, I'm free to withdraw my investment and go to a company that will ignore social issues.

Apple is in a unique position to do that because of the cash that they are throwing off now and their popularity. That was not always the case with Apple (as you are aware) and also is not typically the case with your average corporation. When you are riding high there are many things you can get away with.

> If I disagree with Paypal's disagreement, I'm free to withdraw my investment and go to a company that will ignore social issues.

If you are a long term investor and if the stock is not trading at a good point for you that may not be possible. Let's assume you have a large position in the stock and it has lost money since you bought it as only one example.

You are confusing impossible with undesirable. You care about the money more than you care about the social values espoused by the company. I'm not saying that that is wrong, but if you feel incredibly strongly about something then taking the loss may be preferable to violating your core beliefs.

So "long term investor" is a code phrase for "corporate profit shill"? If PP is doing something bad then get out, and take the loss. To claim that the loss prevents one from getting out is to proclaim that one values money over e.g. people.

(Sure, if that's like your only money, than that's not so easy a decision.)

> They are publicly announcing...

So? They clearly have an opinion on this. Why isn't a company, especially a big company which has many types of stakeholder, allowed to share its opinion?

I'd much rather it did this than just bribe the politicians to change the laws.

> what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs

Well, indeed. This was going to be a huge operation that would have involved shipping in many families, exposing them to these laws.

What's wrong with announcing "we don't approve and here is your punishment" of bigoted laws.

Many a company did not work with or in South Africa during apartheid for the same reason.. Was that wrong of them?

> Not to mention what about the harm that comes to the citizens who would have held those jobs

This is a strange argument to make. By even deciding to open the facility in NC in the first place, PayPal decided against 49 other states - do those people have a claim to these hypothetical jobs? Are they forever committed once the location of these future jobs is announced?