I am totally for the argument that enterprise services servicing specific entities is apolitical, and discussing the merits thereof. But I believe this is a slippery slope fallacy that weakens your argument and is hyperbolic.
A legitimate logical fallacy of the "slippery slope" variety is when one observes a transition from state S_0 to state S_1 via some step/action X taken, and without evidence or justification (!) assumes/claims that the step/action X will therefore be repeated indefinitely until the system evolves to state S_2, S_3, S_4, ... S_n (where S_n is presumably a state we all consider to be undesirable). The "without evidence or justification" part here is EXTREMELY important. If you actually have evidence or justification of a slippery slope, it is not a fallacy; it becomes a valid argument.
Tip: When you see what looks like a slippery slope fallacy at first glance, it's probably best to give the opposing argument the benefit of the doubt by asking for evidence/justification for the induction (S_0 -> S_1) -> S_N. In most cases, some evidence will be provided to justify. If you disagree with the justification, the debate continues in that direction (which is good, because this is productive).
Is it a slippery slope fallacy?
If we do A then B must happen and I think if we do A then B will happen are two different claims. The latter does not explain the reasoning and is thus not a slippery slope.
To give an example.
If we legalize same sex marriage, polygamy will become legal because of it.
This is a slippery slope slope because it is directly saying one will cause the other just because the first one will happen.
I think if we legalize same sex marriage, polygamy will eventually become legal. (Unsaid reasoning behind the opinion: Upon re-evaluating the existing laws in our push to legalize same sex marriage, combined with an existing acceptance of polyamory, we will see that there is no justifiable reason to keep 3+ adults who wish to form a family from doing so, and though the laws will be a bit more difficult to accommodate them, we will lose any sense of 'wrongness' that is used to justify the ban.)
This is not a slippery slope. The original claim is just not displaying their logic behind their opinion, but that does not mean their logic is a slippery slope.
The difficulty is that in the English language, the two can be written the same way and one won't know the intent without asking the author.
It's the same on some level as freedom of speech. We "kinda" used to have a general standard about what we disallowed. But that's being challenged in recent years, and from my perspective, is only being driven by outrage rather than actual discussions to figure out a good and clearly defined common ground that acts in the best interests of our entire society.