The point is that companies argued to continue doing business with South Africa because it would be a net benefit to those countries. It’s the same argument.

No it’s not remotely connected.

There is no international sanctions campaign aimed at forcing Pakistan to support freedom of religion.

There isn’t even any significant international response.

The argument is that in the absence of any international action against Pakistan that might actually cause change, it is better for the people to continue to have smartphones, access to Google search, etc.

If there was any international political movement for change in Pakistan, and Apple or Google were arguing against sanctions, then you would have a point.

You don’t take a moral stand when everyone else takes a moral stand. Someone has to be first.

You also don’t take a moral stand when it would do more harm than good.

Someone has to be sensible, and not hurt people just to please vocal activists in another country.

That is oh so convenient and so wrong. It’s also known as the not my problem argument.

Suppose you lived in England in 1861. Would you choose to do business with the Confederacy? Where is your magic calculator that shows you would do more harm than good by not doing business with them? In reality there isn’t one and you can’t make the calculation based on that. Instead, the magic calculator always swings to do business because it is profitable to do so.

What happened to Google when it left China? Those services just got magically replaced. Search replaced. Streaming replaced. Cloud services replaced.

Ok. So you think that it would actually do no good at all for these companies to leave, because they would be replaced.

It seems like you don’t actually care at all about religious freedom in Pakistan then.