Patagonia Vests: Wall Street Will Need to Work for Them Now | Hacker News Reader

Patagonia Vests: Wall Street Will Need to Work for Them Now

bloomberg.com

5 pointstshannon10 comments

This appears to just be a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19558512

Since the title wasn't clear what the core change is:

>The outdoor gear maker won’t create the products for just anyone through its corporate sales program. Recently, Patagonia has shifted its focus to “mission-driven companies that prioritize the planet,” the company said in a statement late Tuesday.

How is this any different from a baker deciding what kinds of customers can buy his wedding cakes?

(I think these kinds of corporate decisions are foolish! I will sell to anyone who operates within the laws of my country.)

Wall street isn't a protected class.

Supreme court sided with the baker so I'm not sure "protected" matters in this case.

The Supreme Court sided with the baker not on the broad legal principle everyone makes the case about (which they were able to duck), but on the narrow question of the specific behavior of Colorado officials in the case.

Which kind of makes evoking the case to make a point about the broad legal principle odd, though.

I'm just saying that it's odd, while legal, for companies not to sell their product to a customer because they don't like his "morals."

I don't think it's about morals and it doesn't apply to a product based business. This is about services. What would be odd is if I had to accept any client that walks in my door for custom development services because otherwise it would be considered discrimination.

I don't think a bunch of wall street traders are going to bring a class action suit against Patagonia for discrimination. First off, in the court of public opinion, they would lose.

That's actually an interesting point, they may have to stop offering any corporate partnerships over this refusal to some customers. Bear in mind that this is a service they provide, even though Wall Street execs can still independently purchase vests they are being deprived of a portion of their service due to their past actions. Additionally this derivates from the baker a bit because the couple involved was a natural person rather than a corporation, this may actually cause a legal distinction.

I doubt Wall Street would push the point because they'd be flayed in the court of public opinion though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com