To me, the way you post is you want all or nothing. Basically, you want a word that is unrealistic. You can't donate to charity unless you are Mother Teresa because it is demeaning to the people you are donating to if you are not.
Here is the rub. What if RL goes to another country that has better LGBT policy for their manufacturing. What if that causes them to lose a ton of market share because their cloths prices go up. What if that causes them to cut funding to LGBT charities and fire employees who may be LGBT because they can't compete as well. I can easily see a scenario where you are doing more harm than good by going by your unrealistic ideological stance. The world is complex. Sometimes, you have to accept and work with the system you are in and still try your best to achieve a large positive change for good.
They may not, really, not practically. And again, @Bonvivant likely has no idea what measures they've taken to effect change in those countries.
Ralph Lauren sells clothes in a country that's often incredibly racist. Should they stop selling clothes in the U.S.? It's a bridge WAY too far to try to excuse Justin Thomas or something. WAY too far.
Let's go so far as to say Ralph Lauren is a "bad" company (they're clearly not, as their award indicates, but let's pretend).
They would have been a "worse" company if they kept Justin Thomas on board and acted as if this wasn't a big deal.
Oh for f***'s sake. That's one of the dumbest things I've in this whole thing.
Then if they are such big LGBT champions they should take the latter in my eyes. That would be the "right" thing to do, if they were so worried about LGBT rights.
I don't think that any of my posts have tried to defend JT. Quote it if I did. All of my posts have been about RLs hypocrisy.
I get what you’re saying. And if I’m RL, I continue to manufacture where cost is lowest to increase my profit margins and I let JT go because it make generate scrutiny from a social base that you support if you don’t. I personally would do nothing different than what they did...it’s business not personal. But I get what @Bonvivant is saying that they do have the choice (control) over where they do their manufacturing...whether it makes good financial sense or not. So I what think @Bonvivant is pointing to is that if it’s a really big deal to RL, why are they choosing to keep their manufacturing where it is?
But again, I would do exactly what RL did...it’s just business.